#123400 From: "Kevin" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:22 am Subject: Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues farrellkevin80 > "Checks, credit cards and travelers checks are not the same as money > because [they are not] commonly negotiable, something that one can take > into almost any shop and, without any further 'ink-work' or paperwork, > exchange it for whatever one desires...[therefore] there is no offence > for receiving or holding these things. However, using checks, credit > cards and travelers checks or things similar would come under 'buying > and selling' and the offences listed under [Confession with Forfeiture] > 19 and 20 would be likely to arise." (AB) > > "The offence [Nis. Paac. 20] is committed when the bhikkhu hands the > signed credit card receipt — or has it handed — to the seller..." (BMC > p.230) > > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > > Chuck: It is common both in Thailand and USA for Thai monks have credit cards and bank accounts. > > peace... > K: Hi Chuck. Yes, the bhikkhus have lobha. This is natural. They are not like some of the good bhikkhus of old. They are not renunciate, just men with robes. Kevin #123401 From: Eddie L Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues eddielou_us E: Hi Ken, That is really sad to hear it. I believe, Gotama Buddha must have known this will happen. Bhikkhus handling monetary stuffs, doing politics, hopefully not going into business, or marrying, etc. Sigh... If they can not try to stay away from lobha and keep strict with Vinaya set by Buddha then why not disrobe as an option available to them? I hope it is still in the minority and not widespread. Anyway, it is actually beyond me. I am for Buddhist order unity. Metta & respect. ________________________________ K: Hi Chuck. Yes, the bhikkhus have lobha. This is natural. They are not like some of the good bhikkhus of old. Messages in this topic (112) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 27 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . #123402 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Lukas - note from Phil szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: It's not a matter of "I" being good at this or that, but just developing understanding now of whatever appears without any expectation. L: A dosa now, to develop right understanding. >S:The future that we're so concerned about hasn't come yet, the past has gone completely. When we're worried and anxious about this and that now, the reality is the thinking, the worry, the seeing, the hearing - passing dhammas that can be known now. More precious than all the stories about being good/not being good with anything. L: There is a lot of worry, kukkucca in me. What I did wrong with L.How I harmed her. How bad akusala i did, and I fear of consequences that will come. This is so strong. It's so hard to even think of this as just realities now. A depresion I would say. Best wishes Lukas P.s I am also shaken because I was told by L. and meditation teacher also: That I am not doing any progress in Dhamma, though I practice 6 years and I am still doing bad things, and didnt get from my addiction. I am doing something wrong, the teacher said. I feel low of myself. #123403 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:05 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Disrobing dhammasaro Good friend Eddie, Warm thanks for the information. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by chuck] #123404 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:36 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friends all, Quote: K: Hi Chuck. Yes, the bhikkhus have lobha. This is natural. They are not like some of the good bhikkhus of old. ................................................................................\ ................................................................................\ ................... Question: Why and when were the rules developed? Heh? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123405 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:48 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Buddhist Respect the Many Buddhist Flavors... dhammasaro Good friend Eddie, et al Sincere warm thanks for your response. Alas, I can not agree with you. Please re-read my earlier message and the referenced web site. I quoted part of the referenced web site written by a respected monk. Plus, it is congruent with my Master's study in Buddhist Studies. You may find the following web site interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism Thanks again for commenting. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123406 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:21 pm Subject: Re: learning about kusala - Request for a book szmicio Dear Nina, and all Kusala arise so rare. Except there is akusalla kamma patha, that leads to darkness. And I am scared that I do 1 step forward and 2 steps backward. > < Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? > Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of > kusala, but then it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom > arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristic > of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is > no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. > Fatigue, weakness, boredom, a feeling of being downcast, in > low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If > sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they > naturally appear, it will not be known that they are not a > living being, not a person, not a self. They are only > characteristics of citta that arises because of conditions and > then falls away again.> > ------- L: Survey of Paramattha Dhamma is a most helpful reminder to me. But I gave it to Luraya and reading e-book is always not the same to me and discouraginge. I was wondering if any friends, may have this book in a paperform and if this would be possible to offer it to me. I like from Survey the most to learn about vipaka. Best wishes Lukas #123407 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:41 pm Subject: Re: Lukas - note from Phil sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > L: A dosa now, to develop right understanding. ... S: There can be dosa to anything, even the idea of developing right understanding. See how conditioned it is, so anatta. Why? Because of the strong clinging to ourselves, wishing to be a certain way, dosa when it isn't like that. ... > > >S:The future that we're so concerned about hasn't come yet, the past has gone completely. When we're worried and anxious about this and that now, the reality is the thinking, the worry, the seeing, the hearing - passing dhammas that can be known now. More precious than all the stories about being good/not being good with anything. > > L: There is a lot of worry, kukkucca in me. What I did wrong with L.How I harmed her. How bad akusala i did, and I fear of consequences that will come. This is so strong. It's so hard to even think of this as just realities now. A depresion I would say. ... S: It's like that for everyone - always lots of worry, lots of anxiety, lots of thinking about all sorts of concerns about the past, the future - no understanding of the present realities. It's just thinking, Lukas. At a moment now of awareness of thinking with worry, there's no worry at all. We think we concerned about the other person, the one we care so much about, but really it's ourselves we're so conerned about. We're afraid that we will lose the pleasant sights, sounds, feelings and so on. At moments of genuine care and kindness, consideration for the others' needs rather than our own, then there's no anxiety, no depression at all. This is why I suggested thanking L for her support and understanding how she might feel, rather than just thinking of Lukas and his problems. I mentioned that we all have to learn to live alone - to live alone with the citta now, no matter the circumstances. This is the only way. If there isn't any learning to live alone, any development of understanding of what is conditioned now, there will always be proliferations, depressions, untold worries and so on. ... > P.s > I am also shaken because I was told by L. and meditation teacher also: That I am not doing any progress in Dhamma, though I practice 6 years and I am still doing bad things, and didnt get from my addiction. I am doing something wrong, the teacher said. I feel low of myself. ... S: when there is confidence in the value of the Dhamma, in the understanding of realities at this moment, it doesn't matter what anyone says - the confidence becomes more and more unshakeable. We know how anatta realities are and how tendencies and 'personalities' have been accumulated over aeons. We all have additctions of lobha. You asked about comments Phra Dhammadharo would make. He'd often tell the stories of those who had troubled lives and serious addictions, such as Anathapindika's daughter who died of a broken heart, even though she was a sakadagami and Sarakani, who Rob K mentioned recently. Sarakani was an alcoholic and when he died, as Rob mentioned, there was still alcohol still on his breath, but he had become a sotapanna in the very last moments of his life. There was no doubt at all about conditioned dhammas. When Phra Dhammadharo disrobed, he stayed in Jon's small house and then followed us to S.Australia and worked as my colleague. Like you, he had an extremely difficult time as a lay-man, Alan Driver, both in Australia and later in Thailand. He knew about his various addictions, his various weaknesses and had been concerned that they would manifest. However, no matter how difficult his life was, he never doubted the value of the Dhamma as the only real 'solution', the only way out of difficulties in the long-run. There was never any blame, any excuse - there was the confident understanding that these were all just conditioned dhammas. When he died a few years later in a car-crash, he'd been listening to and appreciating the Dhamma more than ever. He would speak so very eloquently on the Dhamma - we'll try and upload some of his talks later when we're back in Aus. You are fortunate to have good friends. Better to appreciate their kindness than mind if their comments are not as you'd like them to be. Metta Sarah p.s Pls share another bit of the audio you've been listening to - just a few lines for discussion. Also, with regard to L's comment, I'd also like to know if you've put yourself on the waiting list for the different addiction programs. I know this would make L happy and happier still when you start a program and get help. ======= #123408 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, If one is not able to live the life of a bhikkhu observing all the rules in word and 'spirit', much better to live the life of a good lay-person, following as many precepts as one wishes. "'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of the well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of [defilements] related to the present life, the prevention of [defilements] related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase in the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline."' http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/the-bhikkhus-rules/d/doc1721.html The akusala kamma involved in breaking the precepts and rules as a bhikkhu is far greater than as a lay person - it leads to that bhikkhu's downfall for many lives to come and leads to the decline of the Sangha and Dhamma. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: <...> > I have a deep respect for the monks but without putting them on a pedestal. > > In fact in the beginning there was no Vinaya when the Buddha founded the Sangha of Bhikkhus and Bhikkunis. The rules were only put in place by the Buddha when he found that the monks were not able to live the life in the sangha without petty arguments unless he set up the rules to prevent those disputes. > > Thus I am able to see them in the reality of their trying to grow in the Dhamma and not giving undue praise just because they are in robes. > > It is because people do not study the dhamma for themselves that I believe that the existence of living arahats are in present day life very rare and perhaps it is why many people have fallen into the practice of only rites and rituals and into superstitious practices of fortune telling, etc which were prohibited by the Buddha. > > (End of excerpt) > > I agree on the above from personal experiences... > > Comments? <...> #123409 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:20 pm Subject: Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues sarahprocter... Dear Kevin, Chuck & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin" wrote: > >K: Yes, the bhikkhus have lobha. This is natural. They are not like some of the good bhikkhus of old. > > They are not renunciate, just men with robes. ... S: To add a little more on this: 1. From the Maha Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries (transl by Soma Thera): "Further, when that highest kind of person, the bhikkhu, is reckoned, the rest too are reckoned, as in regard to a royal procession and the like, when the king is reckoned, by the reckoning of the king, the retinue is reckoned. Also the word "bhikkhu" was used by the Buddha to point out the bhikkhu-state through practice of the teaching in this way: "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said: " 'Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm, Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true. An ascetic and mendicant too.' " ***** 2. From "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment" by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket, transl. by Nina Chapter 6: The Perfection of Patience "The Commentary to this Sutta, the "Sumangalavilaasinii" explains as to the First Stanza, the first verse: "khantii parama.m tapo titikkhaa, patience, restraint, is the highest ascetism", that khanti is adhivaasana-khanti. Khanti is a condition for the development of all kusala, whereas impatience conditions the arising of all kinds of evil through citta and then through the body and through speech. Adhivaasana-khanti is endurance with regard to all situations in daily life, to our environment, and this is the highest ascetism. The Commentary explains: <...> "As to the words, `na hi pabbajito paruupaghaati, he, verily, is not a recluse who harms another', this means that a person who harms, afflicts and injures someone else because he lacks adhivaasana khanti, endurance, cannot be called a recluse. As to the word `paaruupaghaati, he harms', this means that he violates siila, because siila is called parama.m, meaning, supreme. It is explained that an ascetic who is vexing another being, who is someone who harms another, ruins his own siila. This means that he cannot be called a recluse." When a monk who has to observe siila transgresses siila, when he ruins his own siila, he cannot be considered a monk." ***** Metta Sarah ====== #123410 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:15 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, Thank you for your opinion, peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Ghuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123411 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:17 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, Thank you for your opinion, peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123412 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:40 pm Subject: Uggasena, The Circus Performer [ www.aimwell.org] yawares1 Dear Members, When I was young, my big sister and I went to see a Chinese Circus, we enjoyed it very much. But the Hollywood movie " THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH" (Charlton Heston) was the best CIRCUS to me! Today,I found a very nice circus story to share with you all. ************* The story of Uggasena [www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Dhammapada/24-Tanha/24] Verse 348: Let go of the past. Let go of the future. Let go of the present. Crossing to the farther shore of existence, with mind released from everything, do not again undergo birth and decay.348 A troupe of five hundred circus performers came to RÄjagaha every six months and drew big crowds, earning much wealth. The people piled up stacks of beds in order to watch. A young man named Uggasena, who was the son of a millionaire, fell in love with a certain female acrobat. He told his parents he would die unless he could marry her, and refused to eat in spite of being urged repeatedly to take a wife more suited to his family's wealth. Unable to dissuade their son, they sent a messenger to seek the girl's hand in marriage. Her father refused, saying that if their son wanted to marry her, he would have to join their troupe and travel with them. Uggasena joined the troupe to marry the acrobat's daughter, and wandered from place to place, looking after the carts, and so forth. In due course, his wife became pregnant and gave birth. As she played with her son, she called him "Son of a cart-driver", "Son of a firewood gatherer", "Son of a water-carrier", "Son of a know-nothing." Hearing her talk like this, Uggasena decided to learn the art of tumbling. He went to her father and asked him to teach him. After a year, he mastered the art, and prepared to display his skill to the crowd for the first time at RÄjagaha. An announcement was made to the crowd that Uggasena, the son of the millionaire, would perform, and he climbed to the top of a bamboo pole sixty cubits high. Poised on top of the pole, he called for the crowd's attention, ready to perform somersaults. At that very moment, the Buddha entered the city for alms, and everyone paid attention to him. Uggasena performed seven somersaults, landing safely back on top of the pole each time, but there was no applause as no one was watching. Utterly deflated, he just stood there thinking that his performance had been a complete failure. Knowing his thoughts, the Buddha sent the Elder Moggallana to ask Uggasena to perform his feat again. Thinking, "The Teacher wishes to see my performance", Uggasena turned fourteen somersaults, and stood on top of the pole. The Buddha spoke to him, "Uggasena, a wise man should give up attachment to the past, future, and present to gain release from birth, old age, disease, and death". Then the Buddha uttered the above verse, and on its conclusion, Uggasena gained Arahantship together with analytical knowledge (patisamphita 4), even while stood on top of the bamboo pole. Uggasena descended from the pole, approached the Buddha, paid homage, and requested the Going Forth. The Buddha ordained him with the words, "Come, monk". Later, the monks asked him, "Were you not afraid as you descended from the pole"? Uggasena replied that he had no fear, and the Buddha confirmed it, uttering this verse (Dhp v 397): "He who has cut off all fetters, who trembles not, who has gone beyond ties, who is unbound" , him I call a brahmana. On another occasion the monks were talking about Uggasena, wondering how the son of a millionaire could become a wandering circus performer, and how could such a person be endowed with the perfections for Arahantship. Having inquired about the subject of their conversation, the Buddha related a story of the past. ---------- Uggasena's past life: When the golden cetiya of the Buddha Kassapa was being constructed, a husband and wife, having taken abundant food, set out to work as labourers. On the way they saw an elder walking for alms. The wife urged her husband to fetch his almsbowl, and they offered him alms, both making an earnest wish to attain the knowledge that he had gained. The elder, being an Arahant endowed with psychic powers, looked into their futures and smiled. Seeing him smile, the wife said that he must have been an actor, and her husband agreed. Thus due to these words, the pair became actors, but due to their earnest wish they also attained Arahantship. Uggasena's wife also retired from the world and gained Arahantship, according to her wish in her previous life. ******************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares #123413 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lukas - note from Phil upasaka_howard Dear Lukas (and Sarah) - In a message dated 3/23/2012 2:22:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Dear Sarah, > S: It's not a matter of "I" being good at this or that, but just develop ing understanding now of whatever appears without any expectation. L: A dosa now, to develop right understanding. >S:The future that we're so concerned about hasn't come yet, the past has gone completely. When we're worried and anxious about this and that now, the reality is the thinking, the worry, the seeing, the hearing - passing dhammas that can be known now. More precious than all the stories about being good/not being good with anything. L: There is a lot of worry, kukkucca in me. What I did wrong with L.How I harmed her. How bad akusala i did, and I fear of consequences that will come. This is so strong. It's so hard to even think of this as just realities now. A depresion I would say. Best wishes Lukas P.s I am also shaken because I was told by L. and meditation teacher also: That I am not doing any progress in Dhamma, though I practice 6 years and I am still doing bad things, and didnt get from my addiction. I am doing something wrong, the teacher said. I feel low of myself. =============================== Please look: Are you not also doing some good things? Are not regret and remorse for unwise actions good? My birth tradition considers sadness and feeling low to be a "sin". There is so much of peace and beauty in the world - so much to be grateful for. Turn your attention to this - try a little joy, my friend. :-) With metta, Howard Look! Look! /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root, one would go about searching for what?/ (From the Udapana Sutta) #123414 From: "Sadhu Chew" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:28 am Subject: Re: learning about kusala - Request for a book chewsadhu Hi Lukas, Didn't you receive the Survey of Paramattha Dhamma that I sent to you on Nov 2011? With respect, Chew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Nina, and all > Kusala arise so rare. Except there is akusalla kamma patha, that leads to darkness. And I am scared that I do 1 step forward and 2 steps backward. > > > < Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? > > Sometimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of > > kusala, but then it is too weak, and fatigue and boredom > > arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristic > > of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is > > no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. > > Fatigue, weakness, boredom, a feeling of being downcast, in > > low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If > > sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they > > naturally appear, it will not be known that they are not a > > living being, not a person, not a self. They are only > > characteristics of citta that arises because of conditions and > > then falls away again.> > > ------- > > L: Survey of Paramattha Dhamma is a most helpful reminder to me. But I gave it to Luraya and reading e-book is always not the same to me and discouraginge. I was wondering if any friends, may have this book in a paperform and if this would be possible to offer it to me. I like from Survey the most to learn about vipaka. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #123415 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:22 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi KenH, sorry for being late.. you wrote: D: ok , if you are interested that we both discuss Dhamma then MN 22 offers a splendid opportunity . Translation and comments by Ven. Nyanaponika (who-B.T.W. - had a good knowledge of Abhidhamma too) . Please see (and read) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html ----------- KH: I was dismayed to find where that link led me. Although it contained another link to Nyanaponika's notes, the link itself was to Thanissaro's notes. They were his usual sickening diatribe against the Dhamma. They conveyed Thanissaro's odious doctrine that anatta is not the truth but is just a strategy - just a strategy that is to be cast aside once it has served its purpose. ------------------------------- D: I wonder whether you were really dismayed ? A reality of dosa cetasika due to commentaries from a Bhikkhu you claim is a heretic ? Actually I missed the url , as announced I meant Ven. Nyanaponika's link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html sorry, perhaps a Freudian slip .. ;-) But I intended to draw your attention less to the commentary than to the sutta text of the raft simile , starting with : "I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to" (N.) Isn't the simile anything else than demonstrating a strategy , a concept to build a raft in order to cross over with efforts of hand and feet for the further shore? The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? I like to recommend you to read both translations of MN 22 by the Venerables , it is an interesting sutta ,to contemplate before going to the commentaries . Perhaps you may comment with texts your point of heresy. B.T.W. my view of the Anatta Doctrine : that there is nothing that can be considered self, or as mine (5 Khanda attachment) is understood by reason, but it has to be penetrated by heart (insight) . Hence Anatta needs to be realized , a development .The last fetter -as we know- Mana/conceit to be abolished just before Arahantship. The assumption of a transzendental Self ( a strategy as if the raft would carry something of an atta/I to the further shore ) would be indeed a a heresy according to my understanding . But that has to shown by respective writings. > D: I can't imagine that we both manage common ground of mutual understanding by starting with abolute reality . -------------------------------- KH: Where else would anyone start? absolute unreality? :-) D: perhaps with the introduction of reality , i.e. the Maha Satipatthana Sutta? Contemplation of khandas .. by the book KH:Dieter, I really would like to know: why did you choose that particular link as a starting point for future discussions with me. Me of all people! D: mh .. previous kamma ? ;-) with Metta Dieter #123416 From: "charlest" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:41 am Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. dhammasaro Good friend Sarah (dhammasanna), [A partial repost] "Yes! Yes, there is much, much more than the 227 rules in the Vinaya-pitaka... Yes, you are most correct on the development of the rules... If I remember correctly, all the rules were promulgated because one or more laypersons complained about a monk's action(s). I think only one rule was made because of the action of an arahant!!!" ..................................................................... Sincere thanks. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123417 From: "charlest" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:16 am Subject: Re: Lukas - note from Phil dhammasaro Good friends Lukas and Phil, I firmly ditto: ............................................................ Please look: Are you not also doing some good things? Are not regret and remorse for unwise actions good? My birth tradition considers sadness and feeling low to be a "sin". There is so much of peace and beauty in the world - so much to be grateful for. Turn your attention to this - try a little joy, my friend. :-) With metta, Howard .............................................................. For me I prefer to view the glass as half full rather than a glass as half empty... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123418 From: "charlest" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Political Activity by Monks dhammasaro Good friend Eddie, You wrote, in part: And there are a lot of such "fully" enlightened Buddhas that had come and gone to Nibbhana and preaching and explaining the very same Dharma. Dharma is (I could be wrong, based on what I understand) explanation about the (Everything as brought up in Superstring Theory as Theory of Everything) "all" the natural phenomena. Einstein's Theory of Relativity explains only a part but a sizable piece though, I would think, trying to get to Unified Field Theory, he did not finish it, sad. That Unified Field Theory should explain all the fields Gravitational, Electromagnetic field, etc.), some even say Superstring theory is to take the place of it. But if Superstring Theory turns out to be the theory of Everything, then it is "All" including Unified Field Theory. Anyway then can we say we have a big part of Buddha's wisdom or should I humbly just say - knowledge, then? ................................................................... You may enjoy two excellent discussions on DVD: 1. Investigate a Possible "Theory of Everything." 2. Chaos Made Clear. They reinforce what you wrote. You can purchase at: www.THEGREATCOURSES.com . peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123419 From: Eddie L Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Political Activity by Monks eddielou_us E: Thks, Chuck. Metta & Respect, Eddie C: Good friend Eddie, And there are a lot of such "fully" enlightened Buddhas that had come and gone to Nibbhana and preaching and explaining the very same Dharma. 1. Investigate a Possible "Theory of Everything." 2. Chaos Made Clear. They reinforce what you wrote. You can purchase at: www.THEGREATCOURSES.com . peace... Messages in this topic (15) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Photos 30 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . #123420 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:11 pm Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ----- <. . .> > D: I wonder whether you were really dismayed ? A reality of dosa cetasika due to commentaries from a Bhikkhu you claim is a heretic ? ------ KH: It was due to the accumulation of dosa. ------------ > D: Actually I missed the url , as announced I meant Ven. Nyanaponika's link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html sorry, perhaps a Freudian slip .. ;-) ------------ KH: Ah ha! Perhaps you subconsciously wanted Thanissaro to be right. :-) Do you secretly hope there will be an eternal self (unbound consciousness) at the end of the path? ------------------------------------ > D: But I intended to draw your attention less to the commentary than to the sutta text of the raft simile , starting with : "I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to" (N.) > Isn't the simile anything else than demonstrating a strategy , a concept to build a raft in order to cross over with efforts of hand and feet for the further shore? ----------------------------------- KH: In the suttas, a concept is often given as a simile for a reality. But in this case you think a concept (raft) has been given as a simile for another concept (strategy). I don't believe the suttas do that. I think the farther shore is a simile for nibbana, which is the cessation of dukkha and the cessation of the cause of dukkha (lobha, clinging). ---------------------- > D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? ---------------------- KH: Yes, but are you implying more than that? Are you implying the Dhamma is a mere strategy, and is not absolute truth and reality? -------------------------------- > D: I like to recommend you to read both translations of MN 22 by the Venerables , it is an interesting sutta ,to contemplate before going to the commentaries . Perhaps you may comment with texts your point of heresy. ------------------------------- KH: Always listen to the ancient commentaries. Never think you don't need their help. As one sutta explains, the Dhamma is like sword grass: it cuts deeply when wrongly grasped. -------------------------------------------- > D: B.T.W. my view of the Anatta Doctrine : that there is nothing that can be considered self, or as mine (5 Khanda attachment) -------------------------------------------- KH: I think the anatta doctrine says all dhammas are inherently anatta. If it wasn't for the fact that all dhammas were inherently anatta, the world would be a very different place. In that very different world it would be possible to have lobha (this is mine) without ignorance. Similarly it would be possible to have mana (this I am) and atta-ditthi (this is my self) without ignorance. Let's not confuse the doctrine of anatta with those other considerations. If we do, we will be playing into Thanissaro's hands. --------------------- > D: is understood by reason, but it has to be penetrated by heart (insight) . Hence Anatta needs to be realized , a development .The last fetter -as we know- Mana/conceit to be abolished just before Arahantship. ---------------------- KH: Sorry, I can't see the point you are trying to make. ---------------------------------------- > D: The assumption of a transzendental Self ( a strategy as if the raft would carry something of an atta/I to the further shore ) would be indeed a a heresy according to my understanding . But that has to shown by respective writings. ----------------------------------------- KH: I assume there is a typo in that last sentence. What did you mean to say? ------------------ <. . .> >> KH: Where else would anyone start? absolute unreality? :-) >> > D: perhaps with the introduction of reality , i.e. the Maha Satipatthana Sutta? Contemplation of khandas .. by the book ------------------ KH: I look forward to whatever you have in mind. Ken H #123421 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:13 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Rob E: > > Is the vedana for such moments always neutral? I wonder why that is...? Wouldn't a dhamma that was akusala tend to be something that would cause negative vedana? I don't think I quite get that. > ..... > S: Moments of seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting are accompanied by neutral vedana. Only moments of body consciousness are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant vedana (sukkha or dukkha) depending on whether they are kusala or akusala vipaka. I'm a little confused about body consciousness. Are you using it as a synonym for bodysense, or are they related? I understand that bodysense not only applies to tactility but also to the sensation of light impinging on the eye, loud noise impinging on the ear, etc., so there is an aspect of bodysense in all the senses that may lead to vedana. On the other hand there is not much that I found about body consciousness in a search on dsg, but if you mean that it is an additional step after contact that registers the reaction to the visual object or other object in the sense door, then that may be something else. I'm sure this is very basic, but I'm not very clear about it. > This is said to be because because three of the primary elements, earth, fire and air impinge on the body-sense, the impact is said to be strong as compared to the balls of cotton-wool on an anvil being struck by a hammer. The hammer breaks through the cotton-wool and hits the anvil whereas for the other senses when derived rupas impact on the senses (visible object, sound etc), it is said to be like the balls of cotton-wool on the anvil being struck by other balls of cotton-wool. Okay, here you clarify that it is the same as bodysense as opposed to the other senses, or the bodysense aspect of those other senses. The visual object per se may be taken "softly" with neutral vedana, but the impact it has on the bodysense or body consciousness of that sense door will have a positive or negative impact. Is that right? ... > >R: In any case, the attached negative thinking will cause the akusala to keep going. I guess you could have even something that causes negative vedana, and still have no negative proliferation follow it if there is detachment...? > .... > S: Like in the case of when the Buddha was attacked by Devadatta and had a splinter in his foot or when he was dying - akusala vipaka, unpleasant feeling accompanying the body-consciousness, but no aversion. For the arahats, the first dart, but not the second dart. Thanks for mentioning that in this context. I'm a big fan of the 2 arrows. I've always thought it explained in a vey simple way why Buddhism is the ultimate and earliest psychological teaching, although I'm sure some would object to that idea. He made very clear that it is the reaction to what happens, and the proliferation based on it, which leads to the deepest suffering, as opposed to what initially takes place. Anyway, the elimination of the second arrow is so simple to understand - it's a brilliant way of looking at the suffering caused by attachment. > It is the accumulation of negative thinking which leads to both our unhappiness and that in others, as the quote of K.Sujin's which Nina and I quoted stressed. > ... > > > > S: Usually, there's just akusala thinking, proliferation, accumulating more akusala. It is only kamma patha which will bring results in future, when particular deeds are performed through body or speech, such as those causing harm to others which you've been discussing here. > > > >R: That has an interesting intersection with my conversation with Jon on the relation between conventional activity and dhammas. I guess the akusala kamma patha is produced as rupas...? > .... > S: The akusala kamma patha refers to cetana accumulated to the degree that it conditions speech or deeds (various rupas) through the various door-ways. > .... > >A little unclear how the kamma patha produces the vipaka, as opposed to the cetana which I understand as kamma itself. > ... > S: Kamma patha is kamma of a particular degree and fulfilled by various factors. It is this mental kamma, cetana, which conditions vipaka, also mental, by way of kamma paccaya. > ... > >R: I guess it is the cetana that is represented by the kamma patha that is the actual kamma involved...? [Sorry for confusion, but it's an interesting area...] > .... > S: Normally when kusala and akusala cittas arise during the day, such as when there is attachment or aversion to what's experienced through the senses, there is cetana (kamma) at such times, but it's not of the strength that we kill or steal or speak harshly. It is just accumulated kamma. When it is "completed" kamma patha only, such as when there is the deliberate killing of an animal, it is then said to be kamma patha, likely to bring results in future. > ... This makes a lot of sense in ordinary terms - when you merely think of something or have a passing intention, it doesn't harm others. If you speak harshly, that is worse, but obviously to hit or to kill in ordinary terms is much worse. In Abhidhamma terms, I guess it would be explained in terms of resultant rupas? When cetana is strong enough to cause responsive rupas to arise that we interpret as killing or other akusala actions, then it is kamma patha. Does that make sense? And I guess experiencing those rupas could lead to other akusala reactions. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #123422 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist Respect the Many Buddhist Flavors... eddielou_us Hi, Eddie: Correction > > Also Tripitaka (aka Triple Gems) scriptures includes everything (Abhidhamma, Viniya, Stories, etc) in one set. Kind of All-in-One. > Tripitaka is not (aka Triple Gems). Triple Gems is about Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and is different from Tripitaka. Metta & Respect Eddie #123423 From: "azita" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:37 pm Subject: Re: Political Activity by Monks gazita2002 hallo Eddie, > Hi Azita, > > Based on whatever limited understanding of Buddha's teachings I have gathered, science is unraveling some portion of Dhamma, and it may not because of its limited scope mostly only in physical component and no or not at all enough in mind component, Science may not help us reach Nibbhana. azita: I would say science would not help at all in attaining Nibbana! > About ..."Reminders of present moment arising and falling are important to me."... maybe one of the awareness as in Sathipathana, that is vital to achieving that goal. I know breathing in meditation is vital also. azita: why only in meditation, isnt there breathing now while sitting here reading this? I think it takes much more than one of the awarenesses of Satipatthana to achieve the goal of NIbbana. It probably takes understanding and awareness of all realities for the knowledge to be so great that craving for anything finally disappears because the wise ones know that there is nothing worth clinging to, not even existence in the highest plane, because that's impermanent too. patience, courage and good cheer, azita #123424 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:46 pm Subject: IN THE REALM OF YAMARAJA [ sacredtexts.com ] yawares1 Dear Members, Spring is here in Texas, I saw 5 bright red Cardinal birds and 4 Blue Jay birds in my garden. They love to eat my red berries and Sun Flower seeds, and my big bird-bath is like their swimming pool.May be they know that people love them, so they fly around without fear. Sometimes they even came to sit on my pink Oleander plants outside my window looking at me. Cardinal:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_cCEXj5PKE&feature=related Blue Jay:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXMLiGyu5t8&feature=related This lovely Saturday,I proudly present the amazing story to you all. ************************ IN THE REALM OF YAMARAJA THERE was a Brahman, a religious man and fond in his affections but without deep wisdom. He had a son of great promise, who, when seven years old, was struck with a fatal disease and died. The unfortunate father was unable to control himself; he threw himself upon the corpse and lay there as one dead. The relatives came and buried the dead child and when the father came to himself, he was so immoderate in his grief that he behaved like an insane person. He no longer gave way to tears but wandered about asking for the residence of Yamaraja, the king of death, humbly to beg of him that his child might be allowed to return to life. Having arrived at a great Brahman temple the sad father went through certain religious rites and fell asleep. While wandering on in his dream he came to a deep mountain pass where he met a number of samanas who had acquired supreme wisdom. "Kind sirs," he said, "Can you not tell me where the residence of Yamaraja is?" And they asked him, "Good friend, why wouldst thou know?" Whereupon he told them his sad story and explained his intentions. Pitying his self-delusion, the samanas said: "No mortal man can reach the place where Yama reigns, but some four hundred miles westward lies a great city in which many good spirits live; every eighth day of the month Yama visits the place, and there mayst thou see him who is the King of Death and ask him for a boon." The Brahman rejoicing at the news went to the city and found it as the samanas had told him. He was admitted to the dread presence of Yama, the King of Death, who, on hearing his request, said: "Thy son now lives in the eastern garden where he is disporting himself; go there and ask him to follow thee." Said the happy father: "How does it happen that my son, without having performed one good work, is now living in paradise?" Yamaraja replied: "He has obtained celestial happiness not for performing good deeds, but because he died in faith and in love to the Lord and Master, the most glorious Buddha. The Buddha says: 'The heart of love and faith spreads as it were a beneficent shade from the world of men to the world of gods.' This glorious utterance is like the stamp of a king's seal upon a royal edict." The happy father hastened to the place and saw his be beloved child playing with other children, all transfigured by the peace of the blissful existence of a heavenly life. He ran up to his boy and cried with tears running down his cheeks: "My son, my son, dost thou not remember me, thy father who watched over thee with loving care and tended thee in thy sickness? Return home with me to the land of the living." But the boy, while struggling to go back to his playmates, upbraided him for using such strange expressions as father and son. "In my present state, he said, "I know no such words, for I am free from delusion." On this, the Brahman departed, and when he woke from his dream he bethought himself of the Blessed Master of mankind, the great Buddha, and resolved to go to him, lay bare his grief, and seek consolation. Having arrived at the Jetavana, the Brahman told his story and how his boy had refused to recognize him and to go home with him. And the World-honored One said: "Truly thou art deluded. When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past. Men concern themselves most about that which passes away; but the end of life quickly comes as a burning torrent sweeping away the transient in a moment. They are like a blind man set to look after a burning lamp. A wise man, understanding the transiency of worldly relations, destroys the cause of grief, and escapes from the seething whirlpool of sorrow. Religious wisdom lifts a man above the pleasures and pains of the world and gives him peace everlasting." The Brahman asked the permission of the Blessed One to enter the community of his bhikkhus, so as to acquire that heavenly wisdom which alone can give comfort to an afflicted heart. ******************* Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares #123425 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (123020) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, > > >J: We have been discussing the question of whether, according to >the texts, the NEP is a path that is to be *followed*. > > > > A: When the Buddha told us to strive as if one's head is on fire, to strive so hard that flesh & blood dries up, to crush mind with mind, etc, I cannot imagine how anyone can be clearer about producing energetic effort, which by its nature and nature of similes, not passive. > =============== J: I think these similes are given to show the urgency and importance of what is to be done and the degree of effort needed; I do not think they are given to indicate that the effort involved in the development of the path is deliberate effort. (Of course, in any simile taken from the conventional world, the effort described will be deliberate effort, since that is the only kind known to the conventional world.) > =============== > > J: Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful >attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma. > >---------------- > > > A: They are ALL intentional. To associate with superior person requires intention to visit them to hear the Dhamma. To hear the Dhamma requires intention to listen to it rather than some other worldly thing. > =============== J: There is intentional effort at all times during our waking hours, so it's always possible to point to intentional effort of one kind or another. But that's not the point. Hearing the true Dhamma is not just a matter of deciding to listen to a speaker. What is heard must be both true Dhamma and meaningful to our particular situation and circumstances (e.g., not more advanced than we are capable of appreciating). This will depend on past kamma. And on the other hand, one could hear Dhamma on an occasion when it was not expected and so we were not listening for that purpose -- again, a matter of kamma. Association with superior persons is similar. There is only the appropriate association if there is useful communication; it is not a matter of merely being in the presence of someone whom we deem to be `superior'. And on the other hand, whenever we are the recipient of useful advice or explanation of the Dhamma, we are for that period of time associating with a superior person. So it's a matter of there being conditions for the arising of kusala and especially of panna, rather than of a particular situation involving a particular individual. > =============== A: Careful attention vs careless attention is also a definitely intentional activity, one has to strive to reflect on things in a new way (anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta) rather than follow the easiest and most common reaction. > =============== J: Careful attention refers, I think, to the manasikara that accompanies a moment of awareness. This is not a matter of deliberately reflecting on conventional things as being anicca, dukkha or anatta. That kind of thinking has a concept (i.e., the concept of a conventional thing), rather than a dhamma, as its object. > =============== > A: Nothing to say about "practice of dhamma in accordance with the dhamma". To strive as if one's head is on fire, to strive so hard that flesh & blood dries up, to crush mind with mind, etc., I cannot imagine how anyone can be clearer about producing energetic effort, which by its nature and nature of similes, not passive. > =============== J: To my understanding, "the practice of Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma" means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than some kind of attempt to `have' awareness/insight. Here the word `practice' has the meaning of actual accomplishment in, as in the practice of a profession or trade. It does not refer to a kind of preliminary attempt, or to something done to make awareness arise. > =============== > A: -The Buddha had LOTS of occasions to explain that "don't intentionally strive", yet He failed to say this. But He did talk about striving in such forceful manner that to read it to mean anything else is like arguing that 2+2 is not 4. It seems that some people interpret certain teaching and apply interpretations (not taught by the Buddha) back to the texts. I hope you understand why I disagree with what some members say. > =============== J: Nor did the Buddha say "intentionally strive", so your reading is equally an interpretation! :-)) We should bear in mind that conventional language is bound to carry connotations that do not fit the subtleties and depth of the Dhamma. Jon #123426 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:23 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123223) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Let's go back to the texts. In the suttas, it is said that the sotapanna possesses 4 qualities: > > - confirmed confidence in the Buddha, > > - confirmed confidence in the Dhamma, > > - confirmed confidence in the Sangha, > > - the virtues (sila) that are dear to the noble ones, > > and that the sotapanna is freed from the possibility of rebirth in the lower realms. > > > > Because of the perfection of sila, the sotapanna is incapable of committing akusala kamma patha that would result in birth in one of the lower planes. This is the 'correspondence' that is to be found. It is not a correspondence with conventional behaviour, since there is no fixed behaviour that equates to breach of the different precepts. (For example, a person may effect the death of another, and thus be in breach of the first precept, by speaking on the phone). > > RE: The death of another by speaking on the phone would be an accident I assume, not an intentional act. > =============== J: A person may breach the first precept by giving an order by phone that somebody be killed. I gave this example to show that there is no fixed conventional behaviour that corresponds to the commission of a given kind of akusala kamma-patha. The correspondence is between the attaining of stream-entry and the non-commission of certain kinds of akusala kamma-patha. This is not the same as saying there is a correspondence with certain conventional behaviour. Kamma-patha is, in paramattha terms, the cetasika cetana. > =============== > > J: Even less can the attainment of stream-entry be said to necessarily involve a *change* in conventional behaviour, since, on the basis of the suttas, there are many who were already living lives of good sila before becoming enlightened. > > RE: That doesn't really refute the point that after becoming a sotapanna, householder life is impossible. That is the correspondence. There is no prohibition on someone who is not a sotapanna refraining from conventional activities, so it is really beside the point. > =============== J: Well I was just responding to your previous comments that a change in behaviour was also involved and that, as a matter of `logic', this showed a correspondence. > =============== > > J: What I think can be said is that at each stage of enlightenment, as kilesas are progressively eradicated, deeds motivated/accompanied by those eradicated kilesas is no longer possible. > > RE: In any case, that shows that such deeds are caused by or associated with such kilesas, and thus the correspondence between kilesas and conventional actions or involvements is still firm. > =============== J: In the ultimate sense, it is the kilesa-accompanied cittas that no longer arise, rather than any specific actions of body or speech. > =============== > RE: I am not disputing any of the specifics you have been talking about, only drawing the logical conclusion that if the conventional behavior involved is impossible after a certain stage, that this conventional behavior must reflect the eradication of the kilesas that is associated with that stage. > =============== J: What is impossible for the sotapanna is the arising of cittas that are accompanied by certain kinds of akusala mental factors. > =============== > > J: The restraint involved in refraining from killing an insect may well be kusala but does not require panna. It is kusala of the level of sila. If however there is awareness of kusala restraint, then panna will be involved, having the (just fallen away) citta or cetasika as its object. > > RE: So the panna would just be aware of the restraint, not of the object of that restraint which is conventional? > =============== J: Panna of the level of awareness/insight has a dhamma (i.e., a nama or rupa) as its object. Jon #123427 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:39 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hi Jon, > > > > A: When the Buddha told us to strive as if one's head is on fire, to strive so hard that flesh & blood dries up, to crush mind with mind, etc, I cannot imagine how anyone can be clearer about producing energetic effort, which by its nature and nature of similes, not passive. > > =============== > > J: I think these similes are given to show the urgency and importance of what is to be done and the degree of effort needed; I do not think they are given to indicate that the effort involved in the development of the path is deliberate effort. > You've said: "urgency and importance of what is to be done and the degree of effort needed" That is called "what is to be done". The suttas are full of such instructions and nowhere does the Buddha ever teach that He doesn't mean His teaching not to be followed. When He said "Strive!" I believe He meant it. Conventional speech is what the Buddha has talked about and nowhere would He contradict Himself by saying that it shouldn't be followed. Why teach something that isn't meant to be done? >J: There is intentional effort at all times during our waking >hours, so it's always possible to point to intentional effort of one >kind or another. But that's not the point. >====== There are different degrees of intentional effort and not every kind of effort is right effort. The Buddha did talk that Awakening is hard to achieve and it doesn't just happens. It happens due to conditions which one sets when one strives as the Buddha kept telling us. I can't understand why you twist the words to mean something totally opposite of what they say. With metta, Alex #123428 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:20 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: A person may breach the first precept by giving an order by phone that somebody be killed. I gave this example to show that there is no fixed conventional behaviour that corresponds to the commission of a given kind of akusala kamma-patha. That doesn't really matter, since whether it is "fixed" conventional behavior does not impact the point at all. The point is whether *any* conventional behavior in *any* way corresponds to dhammas and I think it is clear that it does. When you say a phone call can cause "someone to be killed," what is the "someone being killed?" It is a conventional event. We can understand it as rupas, but it is what we experience as a killing in the conventional world. It seems like it's the same event, seen either in paramatha [correct] terms, or in conventional terms, but these are not two separate events. Without the "killing," however it is understood, there is no kamma patha. > The correspondence is between the attaining of stream-entry and the non-commission of certain kinds of akusala kamma-patha. This is not the same as saying there is a correspondence with certain conventional behaviour. Kamma-patha is, in paramattha terms, the cetasika cetana. Very simply, John, if kamma-patha did *not* have any correspondence with "conventional behavior" it simply would not be necessary for that "conventional behavior" to cease. Yet it does cease in that case, unless it has already previously ceased, in which case it does not resume ever again, and whatever conventional behavior cannot be done at that stage cannot be done, and will not take place, either in terms of the dhammas that have been eradicated, nor the conventional behavior that corresponds to it. So if certain kamma pathas will not take place after a certain stage, the conventional behavior associated with that kamma patha will also not take place ever again. What a coincidence! No murderous kamma patha necessitates no conventional murder as well. Unless one would like to say that murderous kamma patha can longer arise, but conventional murder can still be done by a sotapanna or an arahat. The correspondence is there, no matter how one may want to philosophically avoid the association for reasons unknown to me. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to say "murder will not take place at this stage, and of course that means that the murderous cetana and kamma patha which are the real events that would take place are correspondingly not going to arise." > > =============== > > > J: Even less can the attainment of stream-entry be said to necessarily involve a *change* in conventional behaviour, since, on the basis of the suttas, there are many who were already living lives of good sila before becoming enlightened. > > > > RE: That doesn't really refute the point that after becoming a sotapanna, householder life is impossible. That is the correspondence. There is no prohibition on someone who is not a sotapanna refraining from conventional activities, so it is really beside the point. > > =============== > > J: Well I was just responding to your previous comments that a change in behaviour was also involved and that, as a matter of `logic', this showed a correspondence. Yes, there is a change in the behavior that can or cannot take place. Stating that it may have stopped taking place earlier is not to the point, because the point is that the behavior is prohibited from taking place after the stage is reached, not that it can't stop earlier, or that it has to change at that exact moment. It just can't backslide after that point, and that is a permanent causal change in behavior, as opposed to a coincidental one. The fact that someone has never committed murder does not make them an arahat, but an arahat cannot commit murder. Again, simple logic, but not reversible. It only applies to the arahat, not to non-murder in general. > > =============== > > > J: What I think can be said is that at each stage of enlightenment, as kilesas are progressively eradicated, deeds motivated/accompanied by those eradicated kilesas is no longer possible. > > > > RE: In any case, that shows that such deeds are caused by or associated with such kilesas, and thus the correspondence between kilesas and conventional actions or involvements is still firm. > > =============== > > J: In the ultimate sense, it is the kilesa-accompanied cittas that no longer arise, rather than any specific actions of body or speech. That may be true in the ultimate sense, but the specific actions of body and speech associated with the kilesas still fail to ever take place once the kilesas are eradicated, so that is not a coincidence, and thus the assocation is clear. If one is no longer in the conventional world with a conventional body - which I understand never takes place until parinibbana, even if the world involved is an arupa world - the perhaps one would only experience pure eradication of kilesas the cittas that formerly entertained them, but the conventional correspondence is in fact there, evidenced by the fact that conventional actions do specifically change in correespondence with the kilesas or their eradication. There is no such thing as a murder taking place without the murderous citta arising and then having strong enough cetana to arouse the rupas of the murderous kamma patha. And in the case when that does arise, conventional murder does take place. There is no kamma patha without an action that fulfills it. You can then if you like look at the action and say "it is really composed of cittas and rupas, not the 'murder of a person,' but that again would make my point: conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha. The correspondence is right there. > > =============== > > RE: I am not disputing any of the specifics you have been talking about, only drawing the logical conclusion that if the conventional behavior involved is impossible after a certain stage, that this conventional behavior must reflect the eradication of the kilesas that is associated with that stage. > > =============== > > J: What is impossible for the sotapanna is the arising of cittas that are accompanied by certain kinds of akusala mental factors. So then the sotapanna *can* appear to commit conventional murder, or not? Obviously the answer is no, so the correspondence is still there. Unless you disagree with that. If you tell me that conventional murder can appear to take place without the arising of the murderous cittas and rupas I will be greatly surprised. I don't know of any stories where arahats were seen to run around murdering people while their cittas were at the same time in a lovely state of peace and equanimity. > > =============== > > > J: The restraint involved in refraining from killing an insect may well be kusala but does not require panna. It is kusala of the level of sila. If however there is awareness of kusala restraint, then panna will be involved, having the (just fallen away) citta or cetasika as its object. > > > > RE: So the panna would just be aware of the restraint, not of the object of that restraint which is conventional? > > =============== > > J: Panna of the level of awareness/insight has a dhamma (i.e., a nama or rupa) as its object. What would the dhamma(s) be in the case of not killing an insect? From my point of view, if one refrains from killing an insect, there has to be awareness of an insect, and then either no arising of the cetana to kill it, or restraint of the impulse to kill it. I can imagine that certain namas would be arising around those moments, and be aware of various rupas, but if there is no awareness of the insect as an insect, the issue of whether to kill it or not would never come up in the first place. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #123429 From: Lukas Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:27 pm Subject: Treatment szmicio Dear friends, Rob E, Rob K, Nina and Sarah I had bad days recently, but now I feel better. For now I have walium and I need to manage all my problems with that. That was my doctor direct help. Also I have antipsychotic medical drug, but I try not take, cause this is quite strong. I want to listen to Acharn today, and this may block my tinking. Do we have any M.D here on the group?Sarah said I should talk with Rob E and Rob K, due to further treatment solution. But I assume you guys are Americans, so you dont know the treatment system in Poland, that is really bad. I am really trying, I have a leading shrink and another side shrink, but they cant offer much. And no methadone treatment in Poland. I dont really want to bother DSG, with such non Dhamma questions. Do u think this is always good to say a truth? - Sarah pls dont come with my private problems. They are forgotten now. I did in my lif a lot of bad things, and I know what I hear, see, feel is due to my past kamma. But it's still hard to really examine/realise this in life - in my present shape. Best wishes Lukas #123430 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:28 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (123147) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > > 1st of all: > > "Practice in accordance with the Dhamma" does suggest practice. > =============== J: Yes, so it's a question of what `practice' means. Does it mean practice in the sense of doing something preparatory or preliminary, something that is designed to lead to or result in the development of the path, or does it mean practice in the sense of the actual development of the path? > =============== > 2nd) Person on stream entry path can be until death which can span dozens of years. During that time one of course develops N8P. > > > Ex: SN25. > > It says: > > ""One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry." > [Alex: same repeated for dhammanussarin] > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.001.than.html > > Please note: "He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry."" So sotapatti phala can occur at death which can be dozens of years after reaching sotapatti magga. > =============== J: I see the point you are raising, but I don't see the relevance of it to the present discussion. Perhaps you could explain why you've raised it. Thanks. Jon #123431 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123251) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, and Rob K. > ... > RE: The stages of enlightenment just provide a convenient example of a correspondence which exists in the teachings. ... Even if you assert -- with which I might agree -- that the reason those conventional behaviors are no longer possible is that the cetana and other factors that would lead to such behaviors will no longer arise or have been eradicated, I would then say that this means that the conventional behaviors do have a relationship to that cetana and those other factors. One way or the other, the correspondence is there between the dhammas of the sotapanna and certain behaviors which the sotapanna cannot or will not ever do. > =============== J: What the sotapanna cannot ever do is *certain akusala kamma patha*. That cannot be expressed by reference to any particular kind of conventional behaviour (except by way of an example). > =============== > RE: Do you now dispute that at each stage of enlightenment, certain behaviors and activities will no longer arise and are in fact impossible? Is it not the case that at a given stage of enlightenment, the enlightened is no longer capable of lying, etc.? Is this not true? If it is true, then it is not correct to say that I am asserting this. I am in fact *not* asserting this but taking it as an agreed-upon given. If that is not the case, please correct my understanding. > =============== J: I hope I've clarified already that what I'm disputing is the characterisation of kamma-patha as `certain behaviours' > =============== > RE: It is possible that the change in behavior took place before becoming a sotapanna. Again, this is a distraction. The only point is that *once* having become a sotapanna, such behavior is no longer possible. It is not an assertion of when the change in behavior may take place, or even whether this is behavior that has lasted the whole lifetime. The point is that there is a permanent correspondence between the sotapanna stage and the inability to backslide. Whether or not such behavior ever appeared before is not significant. > =============== J: It seems to me that you were relying on a `change' earlier in this thread, but if that is no longer so then fine. > =============== > RE: I said that there is a correspondence between the dhammas and destruction of defilements of the stages of enlightenment and the conventional behavior that is or is not possible for that person. I did not say that such behavior is proof of anything, or is a demonstration of the stage of enlightenment, *only* that such behavior that is prohibited by the stage cannot arise again, and that this shows a *correspondence* between that stage's dhammas and the conventional behavior involved. It does not matter whether anyone observes it or not, but just that such correspondence exists. > =============== J: Again, I think you have said (or strongly implied) this earlier in this thread, but I note your comments above. > =============== > RE: Context aside, I don't think it is correct to say that there is no correspondence between dhammas and conventional activities and behaviors, if in fact the stages of enlightenment clearly demonstrate that conventional behaviors will reflect the stage of enlightenment. It's clearly the case that conventional behaviors do correspond, are affected or prohibited by the stage of enlightenment, and thus reflect in one way or another the stage of enlightenment involved. Do you still believe that even this kind of obvious correspondence -- based on the *fact* that the conventional behavior is no longer possible -- does not exist? > =============== J: I hope I have clarified the basis for my disagreement with your assumption. Jon #123432 From: Lukas Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:00 pm Subject: Sarakaani Sutta szmicio Dear friends, This is a Sutta about Sarakaani who was alkoholic, that Rob K mentioned. I find it quite an inspiration. I would like to ask for further comments. <[At Kapilavasthu] Now at that time Sarakaani the Sakyan, who had died, was proclaimed by the Blessed One to be a Stream-Winner, not subject to rebirth in states of woe, assured of enlightenment. At this, a number of the Sakyans, whenever they met each other or came together in company, were indignant and angry, and said scornfully: "A fine thing, a marvelous thing! Nowadays anyone can become a Stream-Winner, if the Blessed One has proclaimed Sarakaani who died to be Stream-Winner... assured of enlightenment! Why, Sarakaani failed in his training and took to drink!" [Mahaanaama the Sakyan reported this to the Buddha who said:] "Mahaanaama, a lay-follower who has for a long time taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha — how could he go to states of woe? [And this can be truly said of Sarakaani the Sakyan.] How could he go to states of woe? "Mahaanaama, take the case of a man endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, declaring 'He is the Blessed One...,'[1] the Dhamma... the Sangha... He is joyous and swift in wisdom, one who has gained release.[2] By the destruction of the cankers he has by his own realization gained the cankerless heart's release, the release through wisdom, in this very life, and abides in it. The man is entirely released from the hell-state, from rebirth as an animal,[3]he is free from the realm of hungry ghosts, fully freed from the downfall, the evil way, from states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha... the Dhamma... the Sangha... he is joyous and swift in wisdom but has not gained release. Having destroyed the five lower fetters, he is reborn spontaneously where he will attain Nibbaana without returning from that world. That man is entirely released from... states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters and weakening lust, hatred and delusion, he is a Once-returner, who will return once more to this world and put an end to suffering. That man is entirely freed from... states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters he is a Stream-Winner, not subject to rebirth in states of woe, assured of enlightenment. That man is entirely freed... from states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to states of woe. "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe. "Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners... bound for enlightenment, how much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan! Mahaanaama, Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.'> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html L: Sadha seems to be the most important. I lack sadha. Best wishes Lukas #123433 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Treatment rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > > > Do u think this is always good to say a truth? - Sarah pls dont come with my private problems. They are forgotten now. > dear Lukas there is a jataka story where a naga tells someone his secret and that gets back to the large birdlike reatires who hunt nagas. They are able to defeat the nagas because of this, I forget the full story. Anyway the moral is that is often/sometimes/usually better to keep private things private. Robert #123434 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:00 am Subject: Letting Go [ Told by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo ] yawares1 Dear Members, Dr.Sastri gives me this story to read. It is a very sad story for such a beautiful Sunday morning, but it teach us to learn to let go of the present, past and future. ************************ 'Letting Go'. Notes from a talk, April 21, 1953 [Translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu] when we can train the mind to let go — so that it's released from holding on to the future, the past, and the present — it's as if we've received an entire ingot of pure gold. We'll be happy at all times. But if we're stupid enough to hold onto things as our own, we'll set the mind on fire so that it won't know any peace. This is why the Buddha has warned us: Whoever clings to physical or mental phenomena, or to mental labels and thoughts, will have to be so burdened that they won't be able to get anywhere. Ultimately, they'll have to die stuck in the world, like the monkey who stole melons from the old couple's field and ended up getting stuck in a tar trap and dying on the spot. It's a story they tell as an analogy of how painful and difficult clinging can be. ********************** The story goes like this: Once an old couple lived at the edge of the forest near the foot of a mountain. It so happened that their rice fields were flooded and they couldn't grow any rice, so they cleared fields on the mountainside and planted them with corn, beans, watermelons, and cantaloupes to have enough food to make it through the year. At night, though, porcupines and other animals kept coming to eat their crops; while during the day, birds and monkeys would come and harass them. So eventually the old couple decided that they'd have to sleep out in the fields to keep watch over them and set out traps to protect them. The old man would keep watch at night, while the old woman would keep watch by day. One day a troop of monkeys came and invaded the field. No matter how much the old woman tried to chase them away, they wouldn't leave her alone. They'd jump from that tree to this, teasing and pestering her to the point where she had no time for her midday rest. So she came up with an idea. She went into the forest and found some tree sap that she boiled until it was a nice sticky tar. Then she took the tar and spread it all over any trees or stumps that the monkeys liked to use as their perches. The next day a huge troop of monkeys came, stealing watermelons and cantaloupes and eating their fill. Now one of the monkeys, a female, had two babies. One of her babies was sick, so she left it home with her husband for him to look after, while she came along with the troop with the other baby hanging down in front of her chest. While eating the melons she thought of her sick baby, so she decided to take some back for the baby and her husband. When she had eaten her fill, she stuffed two tiny melons into her cheeks for her baby and grabbed a largish melon that she hugged to her chest for her husband. As for the baby hanging in front of her, she had it hang onto her back. Just as she was all set to go, the old woman — carrying a shovel — happened to come across the monkeys and gave chase. Startled, the monkeys all ran off — except for the mother monkey, who could do nothing but jump back and forth because she was so weighed down: weighed down in front, weighed down in back, weighed down in her mouth. She tried calling for help, but no sound came out. She happened to jump up onto a stump that the old woman had smeared with a thick, soft glob of tar. The old woman came straight at her with the shovel, so the monkey decided to jump away but she couldn't budge. Her tail was curled up and stuck in the tar. She tried to pry her tail loose with one of her paws, but the paw got stuck. She used her other paw to pry off the tar, but that one got stuck, too. Seeing that the tar on her paw was black and sticky, she sniffed it, only to get her paw stuck to her nose. With one of her back feet she tried to push herself off the stump, but the foot got stuck. Then she used the other foot to wipe the first one off, but her two feet got stuck together as if they were tied up with a rope. She couldn't move. All she could do was look around grimacing, just like a monkey. After a moment's thought she bent down and bit the tar in furious anger. She wanted to bite the old woman but all she could do was bend down and bite tar. As for the old woman, when she saw the monkey all stuck in the tar like this, she called the old man to come and see. Then the two of them found a red ants' nest and broke it over the monkey. Then they set fire to her hair, tormenting her there on the stump. Finally one of them took a hoe handle while the other took a shovel handle, and the two of them beat the monkeys — mother and baby — to a miserable death. This is the result of clinging and attachment: clinging to the future, clinging to the past, clinging to the present: the baby on her back and the melon she was holding to her chest. That's why she had to suffer so much. For this reason, the Buddha taught us to let go of labels and thoughts of past and future, and all five aggregates in the present. Physical phenomena are like the melon the monkey held to her chest; mental phenomena, like the baby hanging from her back. We can't get away because of our heavy burdens. Whoever clings is said to be heavily burdened. As long as we're alive, we have trouble finding true goodness. When we die, we have heavy burdens lying in our way. This is why the Buddha teaches us to let go. Don't grasp onto thoughts of past, future, or present. Make the mind like water on a lotus leaf, which doesn't seep in. It reaches a quality that doesn't die, doesn't come back to be born in this world or any other. Free from suffering and stress, it reaches the highest, most excellent ease. So we should all try our best to lighten our burdens. **************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares #123435 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Nina, (all), N: Yes, you are right. Super: a super fellow, this is super. A bit jovial, sometimes a rather cheap expression. So, let us use just supramundane. Lokuttara: loka, the world, uttara: higher, superior. We can just stick to the Pali. D: 'lokuttara (supramundane )' . I think it is quite benefitial to add the translation in order to avoid misunderstandings and is easier to read for those not so familiar with Pali. B.T.W. Ven. Nyanatiloka used in German 'ueberweltlich' equal to supramundane , perhaps in translation overlooked . > > ------ > N: When we are more precise, we do not speak of path in a > figurative way. The path: cetasikas accompanying citta, and when > citta is > lokuttara all eight factors that are cetasikas are also lokuttara. > Thus, path is not a concept, it is citta and cetasikas.> ------- > > D: assumed Phala citta = lokuttara =experience of nibbana , in that > moment the path is left behind (like a ' raft') ,because the > designation (temporarily ) has been reached, isn't it? The path can > be understood as a concept/guide to Nibbana . > -------> N: Here you speak about the Path in a figurative way. I find this more precise: when phalacitta arises, magga-citta has fallen away. --------- D: I think it is good to have both in mind. below from Nagara Sutta (excerpt) .. "It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the king or the king's minister, saying, 'Sire, you should know that while traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path... I followed it... I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital... complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!' The king or king's minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully grown & prosperous. "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." > >> > D : Are magga (moments) and phala (moments) of the -e.g. - > > sotaapanna 'Lokuttara citta experiences nibbaana' ?> > ----- > > > N: correct. > ------> > D: commentary or canonical? My intuition says it is the former ;-) > ------- N: In a former post I quoted the Abhidhamma: Vibhanga and Dhammasangani: nava lokuttara dhammas. I repeat: N: Asa"nkhataa dhaatu denotes nibbaana. ------ When we read unincluded, this always refers to lokuttara dhamma, in fact all nine. Book of Analysis, CH 18, 1020, at end: D: ok, agreed ;-) > > > D: as : 'magga , phala and the unconditioned element , the former > > two are different from nibbana . > > So perhaps one may conclude these are not of our world ,i.e > realms/ > states higher than that , but not nibbana (? ) > -------- > N: Magga and phala are different from nibbaana. Nibbaana is the > object of maggacitta and phalacitta. > ------- > > D: what is different when Nibbana is experienced? > ------ N: Lokuttara cittas experience nibbaana. One exception: in the process during which enlightenment is attained, the gotrabhu (Change of lineage) that is mahaa-kusala citta is the first citta experiencinbg nibbaana, it is not lokuttara. D: actually we are discussing aspects which are hardly our concern. But it seems to me that the experience of nibbana (the glance ) is without any duality of subject and object.. > > ----- > > N: Seeing experience visible object without thinking. That is > > correct. They are both paramattha dhammas. But also concepts can be > > known without thinking.----- D: yes, and the thinking usually 'comments' on the concept /idea > > D: The preference of terms and its meaning is unfortunately a big > hindrance when trying to understand each other ( translation / > semantics of Pali incl.) > The/this being is no concept , it has been born and it will die , > though in abolute reality there is only this D.O. stream of > conditioned dhammas, marked by citta, cetasika and rupa. > We call the former conventional and the later absolute reality (of > experience ), don't we? > Hence for the citta of the former, the absolute is concept/idea, > whereas for the citta of the latter the conventional is the concept. > ------ N: Being, person, these are concepts. But what we call being are in the ultimate sense only citta, cetasika and ruupa that are impermanent and non-self. ------- D: Want I meant is: for the person who doesn't know about khandas (citta,cetasika, rupa and D.O.) , ultimate or absolute is concept The truth is relative to the angle of view from which it is expressed . It makes no sense to tell somebody his view of being (a person) is concept. without adding from 'the absolute point of view ' . The reality is presented by one's view, isn't it? > D: I think 'some people' are the exception from the rule , > expressed by Ven. Nyanatiloka : > 'Before entering into the discussion of the contents of the seven > Abhidhamma books, I wish to point out that the study of the > Abhidhamma requires a previous thorough acquaintance with the > fundamental teachings and ethical aims of Buddhism; and it is only > to those who have fulfilled this preliminary condition that, by > thus recapitulating their learning and by philosophically deepening > their insight, the Abhidhamma may prove to be of real benefit.' > ------ N: We cannot understand the deep meaning of the suttas without the Abhidhamma. D: that is your point of view, the Venerable states vice versa. N: And, what should not be forgotten: the Abhidhamma deals with seeing, visible object, attachment, all realities of daily life. D: so does- for example- the Maha Satipattihana Sutta besides many others N:The Abhidhamma is not theory. First of all we should understand what Abhidhamma, higher teaching, or teaching in detail means. It is very, very daily. ----- D: no claim of theory only .. it can be seen -as I understand - as an expansion of the suttas. No debasing intented. B.T.W.: the cetasika in daily life-project has been neglected . I am not sure l about further interest of the forum to proceed (?). The last cetasika treated was dosa.... with Metta Dieter #123436 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:13 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123251) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, and Rob K. > > ... > > RE: The stages of enlightenment just provide a convenient example of a correspondence which exists in the teachings. ... Even if you assert -- with which I might agree -- that the reason those conventional behaviors are no longer possible is that the cetana and other factors that would lead to such behaviors will no longer arise or have been eradicated, I would then say that this means that the conventional behaviors do have a relationship to that cetana and those other factors. One way or the other, the correspondence is there between the dhammas of the sotapanna and certain behaviors which the sotapanna cannot or will not ever do. > > =============== > > J: What the sotapanna cannot ever do is *certain akusala kamma patha*. That cannot be expressed by reference to any particular kind of conventional behaviour (except by way of an example). I don't understand what "except by way of example" means. Either the conventional behaviors can be done, in which case they have no relation to the eradication of kilesas, or they cannot, in which case they do have a relation. I don't see why this can't be addressed directly instead of with a more complex statement that does not address it. When I say there is a correspondence I mean that there is a relation. When one thing happens the other does too - that means they're related. It's not just an example. You would say that the sotapanna cannot have the kamma patha of murderous intent arise. Would you not also say that he cannot murder anyone? Either it is possible or it is not. If you are willing to assert that the sotapanna can have no kamma patha for murder arise, but that he could be seen to murder someone, then I will admit that there is no relation between dhammas and conventional actions. Otherwise, the relation is more than obvious. > > =============== > > RE: Do you now dispute that at each stage of enlightenment, certain behaviors and activities will no longer arise and are in fact impossible? Is it not the case that at a given stage of enlightenment, the enlightened is no longer capable of lying, etc.? Is this not true? If it is true, then it is not correct to say that I am asserting this. I am in fact *not* asserting this but taking it as an agreed-upon given. If that is not the case, please correct my understanding. > > =============== > > J: I hope I've clarified already that what I'm disputing is the characterisation of kamma-patha as `certain behaviours' But that doesn't address the question. I'm not characterizing kamma-patha as "certain behaviors." I'm saying that the dhammas of kamma-patha have an observable relationship with the conventional action that is involved. The kamma-patha for murder is *always* accompanied by conventional murder. There's never a time when a person is not seen to be murdered when the kamma-patha of murder arises. I agree that the real event is the kamma-patha, but the fact remains that the sotapanna can't murder anyone, and the reason he can't murder anyone is that the kamma-patha no longer arises for him. You can say that the murder doesn't really take place, that no one is murdered, and that may be true, but it is true that both the namas and rupas involved in murderous intent to the level of kamma-patha no longer arise for the sotapanna, and thus there is no longer the appearance of conventional murder in the conventional world. Within the conventional world, all people will agree that the sotapanna never murders anyone, and that is all I am asserting. The "illusory" conventional murder cannot appear to take place when the kamma-patha for murder no longer arises. Would you not agree with that? > > =============== > > RE: It is possible that the change in behavior took place before becoming a sotapanna. Again, this is a distraction. The only point is that *once* having become a sotapanna, such behavior is no longer possible. It is not an assertion of when the change in behavior may take place, or even whether this is behavior that has lasted the whole lifetime. The point is that there is a permanent correspondence between the sotapanna stage and the inability to backslide. Whether or not such behavior ever appeared before is not significant. > > =============== > > J: It seems to me that you were relying on a `change' earlier in this thread, but if that is no longer so then fine. Just clarifying what is important in the point, that there is indeed a "change" in behavior in the sense that certain behaviors can never again take place, and will not. When you brought up the example of someone adopting the "new" behavior before the stages of enlightenment, I needed to clarify, so I did. Either way it's a permanent change in conventional behavior. If, as in your hypothetical example, the person just happened to stop murdering people before becoming a sotapanna, then the change is that they can never do it again, but it doesn't change the point. If that behavior hadn't changed beforehand, then it would change at the time of enlightenment. So have we covered all the bases on that point? > > =============== > > RE: I said that there is a correspondence between the dhammas and destruction of defilements of the stages of enlightenment and the conventional behavior that is or is not possible for that person. I did not say that such behavior is proof of anything, or is a demonstration of the stage of enlightenment, *only* that such behavior that is prohibited by the stage cannot arise again, and that this shows a *correspondence* between that stage's dhammas and the conventional behavior involved. It does not matter whether anyone observes it or not, but just that such correspondence exists. > > =============== > > J: Again, I think you have said (or strongly implied) this earlier in this thread, but I note your comments above. Well, it's when you seem to bring up an exception or a side-refutation that I have to clarify my original statement. That's fine, you have a right to challenge anything you think is wrong, and then I have to figure out what I'm talking about. The point is that the correspondence is there and takes place. In fact, a collection of abstentions that pertain to the sotapanna would in fact provide a kind of evidence that the person was in an advanced state, but it wouldn't be conclusive. On the other hand, the presence of a defilement or an akusala kamma patha would *disprove* the status of the person as a sotapanna, and this again shows the correspondence, whether it is offered as evidence or not. It exists. > > =============== > > RE: Context aside, I don't think it is correct to say that there is no correspondence between dhammas and conventional activities and behaviors, if in fact the stages of enlightenment clearly demonstrate that conventional behaviors will reflect the stage of enlightenment. It's clearly the case that conventional behaviors do correspond, are affected or prohibited by the stage of enlightenment, and thus reflect in one way or another the stage of enlightenment involved. Do you still believe that even this kind of obvious correspondence -- based on the *fact* that the conventional behavior is no longer possible -- does not exist? > > =============== > > J: I hope I have clarified the basis for my disagreement with your assumption. I guess - but I am still waiting for a direct refutation of my thesis, rather than various other factors that don't contradict what I am saying. The simple point is that certain conventional behaviors will absolutely not take place once a person is a sotapanna, and that is a fact. The meaning of that association is what is at issue, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123437 From: "r.laban@..." Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:26 am Subject: Looking for Nina van Gorkum r.laban... Dear All, We just started the Netherlands Buddhist Archive in Holland (on behalf if the BUN, Buddhist Union Netherlands) and we are searching for our pioneers in Buddhism. Nina van Gorkum is certainly one of them. Is there anybody who can bring me in contact with here?. Best regards, Rinus. #123438 From: "charlest" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:39 am Subject: Re: The Matter of Civilizations Past and Earlier Buddhas dhammasaro Good friends all, From good friend connie: "is there even a planet earth now? is it the same planet earth as the prior buddhas lived on? my god, i haven't checked your link, but have you seen the descriptions of these guys?! we'd be hard pressed to recognize them. hm, well, there we are: who sees the dhamma now?" ..................................................................... [Partial Web Site Quote] This list shows 16 potential habitable worlds (soon to be updated to 4 confirmed and 23 unconfirmed), including confirmed and unconfirmed exoplanets, ranked by similarity with Earth using the Earth Similarity Index (ESI). From: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/list_esi http://phl.upr.edu/home peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted] #123439 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:55 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Jon, >A:"Practice in accordance with the Dhamma" does suggest practice. >=============== >J:Yes, so it's a question of what `practice' means. Does it mean >practice in the sense of doing something preparatory or preliminary, >something that is designed to lead to or result in the development >of the path, or does it mean practice in the sense of the actual >development of the path? >===================================== I am all for careful study of the words and making sure that they are not misinterpreted. But, as I have previously provided on many occasions, the Buddha kept talking about effort in a very forceful way. For some reason the Buddha didn't talk in the manner that I see some talk today. He could have said that "don't intentionally strive, that develops Self view" etc etc. But again and again, He chose to say something much more different. With metta, Alex. #123440 From: "Kevin" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:38 pm Subject: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat farrellkevin80 Hello All, http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11881 Mhmmm. Kevin #123441 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:25 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Dear Kevin, all, Walking across a street has possibility of adverse effects. This doesn't mean that one should not cross the street. Just be careful. There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of meditation. ================================================= fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive decline typically associated with aging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies =========================================================== With metta, Alex #123443 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Hi Alex, > There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of > meditation. > > ================================================= > fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty > Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was > determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain > involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive > processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent > practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive > decline typically associated with aging > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies > =========================================================== > So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and not with developing wisdom? Metta, Sukin #123444 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Walking across a street has possibility of adverse effects. This doesn't mean that one should not cross the street. Just be careful. > > There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of meditation. I find it interesting that at times it may be asserted that scientific evidence only applies to conventional reality and has nothing to do with dhammas, while at other times scientific evidence may be used to support various views. In any case, I have known many meditators and almost all of them have had consistent increases in peace and wellbeing, not psychosis. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #123445 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sukin and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: Alex: > > There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of > > meditation. > > > > ================================================= > > fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty > > Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was > > determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain > > involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive > > processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent > > practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive > > decline typically associated with aging > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies > > =========================================================== > > > > So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and not > with developing wisdom? Straw man - nice try. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123446 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Rob E, How is it a straw man? What Alex said showed that he agreed with the scientists' conclusions. sukin On 26-Mar-12 11:16 AM, Robert E wrote: > > Hi Sukin and Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , Sukinder > wrote: > > Alex: > > > There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of > > > meditation. > > > > > > ================================================= > > > fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty > > > Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was > > > determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain > > > involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive > > > processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent > > > practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive > > > decline typically associated with aging > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies > > > =========================================================== > > > > > > > So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and > not > > with developing wisdom? > > Straw man - nice try. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - > > #123447 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Hi rob E, > > In any case, I have known many meditators and almost all of them have > had consistent increases in peace and wellbeing, not psychosis. > And are you pointing this out simply to counter what was suggested in the video or do you actually see this as a positive result of meditation? Metta, sukin #123448 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau Hi Kevin, I wish someone would tell that researcher that *none* of the practices she is observing was *ever* taught by the Buddha. Nor did he teach anything remotely like them. But as Sarah might say, instead of wishing for such things it would be better to have right understanding now. :-) Ken H #123449 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Looking for Nina van Gorkum nilovg Beste Rinus, Yes, here I am. Nina. Op 25-mrt-2012, om 21:26 heeft r.laban@... het volgende geschreven: > We just started the Netherlands Buddhist Archive in Holland (on > behalf if the BUN, Buddhist Union Netherlands) and we are searching > for our pioneers in Buddhism. Nina van Gorkum is certainly one of > them. Is there anybody who can bring me in contact with here?. #123450 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 nilovg Dear Alex, Op 26-mrt-2012, om 2:55 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > I am all for careful study of the words and making sure that they > are not misinterpreted. But, as I have previously provided on many > occasions, the Buddha kept talking about effort in a very forceful > way. ------ N: Atapii, sampajano satima: with ardent energy, with pa~n~naa and mindfulness. The energy or effort of the eightfold Path is together with sati and pa~n~naa. They are, all three of them, cetasikas that can only arise when there are the rigth conditions. No person, no self at all. But, so long as we are not sotaapannas we take them for self. When we read the Buddha's words about effort, we can, thanks to the Abhidhamma, understand his words in the right way. They are exhortations not to be lazy, but to keep on being aware of naama and ruupa in daily life, without being discouraged. We may see little progress, but what can we expect after all the aeons of ignorance? And thinking about progress is mostly with an idea of 'my progress'. Best of all to be aware of the dhamma appearing at this moment. ------- Nina. #123451 From: "charlest" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat dhammasaro Good friend kevin, et al Besides the so called Buddhist Meditation, there are many other types of meditation. I began secular meditation [Vajrayana?] during the middle 1960s. It was not until some twenty years ago did I learn about Buddhist Meditation. See web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation [Excerpts] Meditation is generally an inwardly oriented, personal practice, which individuals do by themselves. Prayer beads or other ritual objects are commonly used during meditation. Meditation may involve invoking or cultivating a feeling or internal state, such as compassion, or attending to a specific focal point. The term can refer to the state itself, as well as to practices or techniques employed to cultivate the state.[4] There are dozens of specific styles of meditation practice;[3] the word meditation may carry different meanings in different contexts. Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions. A 2007 study by the U.S. government found that nearly 9.4% of U.S. adults (over 20 million) had practiced meditation within the past 12 months, up from 7.6% (more than 15 million people) in 2002.[5] Since the 1960s, meditation has been the focus of increasing scientific research of uneven rigor and quality.[6] In over 1,000 published research studies, various methods of meditation have been linked to changes in metabolism, blood pressure, brain activation, and other bodily processes.[7][8] Meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction.[9][10] ............ Some of the earliest references to meditation are found in the Bible, dating around 1400 BCE,[24][25] and in the Hindu [Actually Brahman] Vedas from around the 15th century BCE.[20] Around the 6th to 5th centuries BCE, other forms of meditation developed in Taoist China and Buddhist India.[20] ........................... The PÄli Canon, which dates to 1st century BCE considers Indian Buddhist meditation as a step towards salvation. ...................................................... Secular forms of meditation were introduced in India in the 1950s as a Westernized form of Hindu meditative techniques and arrived in the United States and Europe in the 1960s. Rather than focusing on spiritual growth, secular meditation emphasizes stress reduction, relaxation and self improvement. [End extracts] Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123452 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:32 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Moments of seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting are accompanied by neutral vedana. Only moments of body consciousness are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant vedana (sukkha or dukkha) depending on whether they are kusala or akusala vipaka. > > I'm a little confused about body consciousness. Are you using it as a synonym for bodysense, or are they related? ... S: Thx for asking for clarifications. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/body consciousness are all namas, i.e. dhammas that can experience an object. Seeing consciousness experiences visible object (a rupa) through the eye-sense (another rupa). In other words, for seeing consciousness to experience a visible object, there has already be the occurring of visible object and eye-sense at that instant. In addition, seeing consciousness needs the assistance of 7 universal mental factors (also namas) to assist it. These include contact and feeling. The feeling in this case is always neutral feeling. Seeing consciousness arises at such a moment due to past kamma - it is a vipaka citta as discussed. The mental factors arising with it are therefore also vipaka cetasikas. Hearing, smelling and tasting can be understood in a similar way. Touching or body consciousness (a nama) experiences tangible object (one of temperature, hardness/softness or motion - all rupas) through the body-sense (rupa). The body-sense can be found all over the body, so there can be the experience of tangible object almost anywhere on the body. (Of course, at the moment of experiencing tangible object, there is no idea of place or part of the body - just the tangible object is experienced). Again, 7 universal cetasikas (namas) arise with the body consciousness and again these include vedana (feeling). In this case, however, for reasons I mentioned, the vedana is either pleasant or unpleasant, depending on whether it is kusala or akusala vipaka at that moment. .... >I understand that bodysense not only applies to tactility but also to the sensation of light impinging on the eye, loud noise impinging on the ear, etc., so there is an aspect of bodysense in all the senses that may lead to vedana. .... S: At the moment of seeing light/visible object or hearing sound, there is no impingement on the body sense and no tangible experience. However, because there is body-sense all over the body, there are often experiences of tangible object through the body-sense when looking at light or hearing loud noises, but these are at different moments to the experiences through the eye and ear doors. Only one experience, one citta at a time, even though it usually seems they all appear together. ... >On the other hand there is not much that I found about body consciousness in a search on dsg, .... [Try 'useful posts' for more] ... >...but if you mean that it is an additional step after contact that registers the reaction to the visual object or other object in the sense door, then that may be something else. I'm sure this is very basic, but I'm not very clear about it. .... S: Phassa (contact) is another universal nama that arises together with every single citta during the day. So there is contact with seeing, with hearing, with body-consciousness, with thinking. At every instant. Pls ask for any further clarifications as it's important to get all of this clear. ... > > >S: This is said to be because because three of the primary elements, earth, fire and air impinge on the body-sense, the impact is said to be strong as compared to the balls of cotton-wool on an anvil being struck by a hammer. The hammer breaks through the cotton-wool and hits the anvil whereas for the other senses when derived rupas impact on the senses (visible object, sound etc), it is said to be like the balls of cotton-wool on the anvil being struck by other balls of cotton-wool. > >R: Okay, here you clarify that it is the same as bodysense as opposed to the other senses, or the bodysense aspect of those other senses. The visual object per se may be taken "softly" with neutral vedana, but the impact it has on the bodysense or body consciousness of that sense door will have a positive or negative impact. Is that right? ... S: Body-consciousness, like seeing- consciousness or any other consciousness is citta, nama. Body-sense, like eye-sense or any other sense is rupa. Visible object only ever impinges on eye-sense. It is only temperature, hardness or motion which impinge on the body-sense. It is due to kamma whether pleasant or unpleasant objects are experienced. .... > > S: Like in the case of when the Buddha was attacked by Devadatta and had a splinter in his foot or when he was dying - akusala vipaka, unpleasant feeling accompanying the body-consciousness, but no aversion. For the arahats, the first dart, but not the second dart. > >R: Thanks for mentioning that in this context. I'm a big fan of the 2 arrows. I've always thought it explained in a vey simple way why Buddhism is the ultimate and earliest psychological teaching, although I'm sure some would object to that idea. He made very clear that it is the reaction to what happens, and the proliferation based on it, which leads to the deepest suffering, as opposed to what initially takes place. Anyway, the elimination of the second arrow is so simple to understand - it's a brilliant way of looking at the suffering caused by attachment. ... S: Yes. Well put. I needed you to help me to explain this to a yoga friend this morning who was talking about the 'inner goodness' or 'divine nature' within us all;-/ ... > > S: Normally when kusala and akusala cittas arise during the day, such as when there is attachment or aversion to what's experienced through the senses, there is cetana (kamma) at such times, but it's not of the strength that we kill or steal or speak harshly. It is just accumulated kamma. When it is "completed" kamma patha only, such as when there is the deliberate killing of an animal, it is then said to be kamma patha, likely to bring results in future. > > ... > >R: This makes a lot of sense in ordinary terms - when you merely think of something or have a passing intention, it doesn't harm others. If you speak harshly, that is worse, but obviously to hit or to kill in ordinary terms is much worse. ... S: Yes and this is why the sotapanna still has plenty of accumulated akusala, but doesn't intentionally harm others through killing,stealing etc. ... > > In Abhidhamma terms, I guess it would be explained in terms of resultant rupas? When cetana is strong enough to cause responsive rupas to arise that we interpret as killing or other akusala actions, then it is kamma patha. Does that make sense? And I guess experiencing those rupas could lead to other akusala reactions. .... S: I don't think we can always use our interpretations as any criterion. It is the cetanas themselves. We read in the texts about the criteria that make it akusala kamma patha. For example, in the case of killing, to be full completed kamma patha, there has to be the intention to kill, another sentient being, the action and the loss of life of that being (through mind order, speech or bodily action). For each kind of kamma patha, the criteria can be read in detail in the Atthasalini or other commentaries. Metta Sarah ===== #123453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 26-mrt-2012, om 9:27 heeft charlest het volgende geschreven: > Besides the so called Buddhist Meditation, there are many other > types of meditation. I began secular meditation [Vajrayana?] during > the middle 1960s. It was not until some twenty years ago did I > learn about Buddhist Meditation. ------ N: I think that you know that meditation is bhavana, mental development, including samatha bhavana (meditation of calm) and vipassanaa bhavana (meditation of insight). The latter is only taught by a Buddha. In the Visuddhimagga we find all details, but I think that you are familiar with it. ------ Nina. #123454 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:46 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat dhammasaro Good friend Nina, Sincere warm thanks for your comments. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123455 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Nina and Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Han, I areally ppreciated your further clarifications. It's always helpful to see the Pali alongside as well. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Following up to the above quote, I read Visudhimagga and I am now familiar with ruupa-sattaka, naama-sattaka, and mahaa vipassanaa. For those who love Paa.li I print below just the headings. > > [THE MATERIAL SEPTAD] > [ruupasattakaa] > > (1) as taking up and putting down (aadaananikkhepanato), > (2) as disappearance of what grows old in each stage (vayovu.d.dhattha"ngamato), > (3) as arising from nutriment (aahaaramayato), > (4) as arising from temperature (utumayato), > (5) as kamma-born (kammajato), > (6) as consciousness-originated (cittasamu.t.thaanato), and > (7) as natural materiality (dhammataaruupato). > > [THE IMMATERIAL SEPTAD] > [Aruupasattakasammasanakathaa] > > (1) by groups (kalaapato), > (2) by pairs (yamakato), > (3) by moments (kha.nikato), > (4) by series (pa.tipaa.tito), > (5) by removal of [false] view (di.t.thiugghaa.tanato), > (6) by abolition of conceit (maanasamugghaa.tanato), > (7) by ending of attachment (nikantipariyaadaanato). > > [THE EIGHTEEN PRINCIPAL INSIGHTS] > [mahaavipassanaa] <...> #123456 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:50 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123054) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > RE: There is still a necessary degree of kusala before that degree of understanding can take place. Is that not so? > > > =============== > > > > J: As mentioned above, there is already some accumulated understanding, but it can only manifest, or develop further, under the right conditions. > > RE: I would just say again that right understanding of any level is kusala, and therefore I think it is fair to say that while any dhamma, kusala or akusala, can be the object of understanding, right understanding at that moment is always kusala. > =============== J: Of course I would agree that right understanding is always kusala (even when the object of the understanding is an akusala dhamma). But I'm wondering why you would think it necessary to make the point. Are you perhaps reading me as saying/suggesting otherwise (if so, you are misreading me :-))? Jon #123457 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:04 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123056) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: I found a quote from Rob K. on the sotapanna: > "What they can never do is go back to having wrong view, nor can they ever drink alcohol or lie or steal or kill even an ant. They can never take any other teacher than the Buddha, and they value the triple gem above all things. They give freely as they have eliminated stinginess." > > So we have a list of conventional actions that the sotapanna can or cannot engage in. Again, there is an obvious connection between the elimination of the defilements on the level of dhammas and the expression of this in conventional actions and abstentions. There is no example that contradicts this association, is there? > =============== J: I believe what RobK is referring to here is certain forms of akusala kamma patha, which he expresses in conventional language. > =============== > > J: So I don't think there is any correlation to be drawn, except at the post-enlightenment stage. > > RE: But that is still a stage and then there is a correlation. So what does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that there is some association between the defilements, which are on the level of dhammas, and what can and cannot be expressed in conventional actions. It's pretty clear. > =============== J: Even accepting your terminology and point of reference, there would be no correlation between the eradication of certain defilements and what *can* be expressed in conventional actions, but only between what *cannot* be expressed. > =============== > RE: I doubt we can find an example of an ordinary person who *never* falls back in all the areas which a sotapanna expresses, as the sotapanna does. We may not be able to prove someone is a sotapanna by their good behavior, but we *can* tell a non-sotapanna by any instance of killing or other permanently eradicated tendencies. > =============== J: Even the statement "we *can* tell a non-sotapanna by any instance of killing or other permanently eradicated tendencies" is too general I believe. You will remember the sutta quoted here recently in which everybody said that a person who had just died could not be a sotapanna because he had died with alcohol on his breath (they understood what was involved, but their interpretation of the apparent situation was wrong). > =============== RE: Therefore the connection between conventional behavior and dhammas is not only established, but is part of the lexicon of enlightenment. > =============== J: Yes, I appreciate that that's your point. But you haven't yet explained what you see as being the significance of this (perceived) connection, for example, how it bears on the development of the path. Jon #123458 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 25-mrt-2012, om 18:47 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > > ----- > > D: assumed Phala citta = lokuttara =experience of nibbana , in > that > moment the path is left behind (like a ' raft') ,because the > > designation (temporarily ) has been reached, isn't it? The path > can > be understood as a concept/guide to Nibbana . > > -------> > N: Here you speak about the Path in a figurative way. I find this > more precise: when phalacitta arises, magga-citta has fallen away. > --------- > > D: I think it is good to have both in mind. below from Nagara Sutta > (excerpt) .. > > ... the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble > eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right > action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. ...> > ------- N: An interesting sutta, here it is explained what that ancient path is: the cetasikas that are the eight path-factors. ------- > N: Lokuttara cittas experience nibbaana. One exception: in the > process during which enlightenment is attained, the gotrabhu (Change > of lineage) that is mahaa-kusala citta is the first citta > experiencinbg nibbaana, it is not lokuttara. > > D: actually we are discussing aspects which are hardly our concern. > ------- N: I know. But it is useful to have knowledge of cittas in detail. Some people may take for the experience of nibbaana what is not. ------- D: But it seems to me that the experience of nibbana (the glance ) is without any duality of subject and object.. ------- N: The experience (the lokuttara citta) is different from nibbana itself. The lokuttara cittas arise and fall away, they are conditioned. Nibbaana is uncondiitoned, it does not arise and fall away. > -------- > > The/this being is no concept , it has been born and it will die , > > though in abolute reality there is only this D.O. stream of > > conditioned dhammas, marked by citta, cetasika and rupa. > > We call the former conventional and the later absolute reality > (of > experience ), don't we? > > Hence for the citta of the former, the absolute is concept/idea, > > whereas for the citta of the latter the conventional is the concept. > > > ------ > N: Being, person, these are concepts. But what we call being are in > the ultimate sense only citta, cetasika and ruupa that are > impermanent and non-self. > ------- > > D: Want I meant is: for the person who doesn't know about khandas > (citta,cetasika, rupa and D.O.) , ultimate or absolute is concept > The truth is relative to the angle of view from which it is > expressed . It makes no sense to tell somebody his view of being (a > person) is concept. > without adding from 'the absolute point of view ' . The reality is > presented by one's view, isn't it? > -------- N: Citta, cetasika and ruupa are ultimate realities, no matter they are known as such or not known. They are impermanent, no matter this is realized or not realized. We read in the “Gradual Sayings,” Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, §134, Appearance, that the Buddha said: “Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathågata, this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of dhammas prevails, namely, all phenomena are impermanent. About this a Tathågata is fully enlightened, he fully understands it. So enlightened and understanding he declares, teaches and makes it plain. He shows it, he opens it up, explains and makes it clear: this fact that all phenomena are impermanent.” ---------- > > N: And, what should not be forgotten: the Abhidhamma deals with > seeing, visible object, attachment, all realities of daily life. > > D: so does- for example- the Maha Satipattihana Sutta besides many > others > ------ N: Yes, there is Abhidhamma in the suttas. In fact, the suttas are full of Abhidhamma, but this may easily be overlooked. ------- > D: B.T.W.: the cetasika in daily life-project has been neglected . > I am not sure l about further interest of the forum to proceed (?). > > The last cetasika treated was dosa.... > ------- N: I would say that it depends on your inclination. Let us ask Sarah. ------ Nina. #123459 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Treatment sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, Best wishes for your treatments. Be courageous and remember right understanding and right awareness at the present moment. The Dhamma is always present to be studied and understood when there is wise attention. It doesn't depend on books or other people. Remember you always have good friends here who care a lot about your welfare. >________________________________ > From: Lukas >Do u think this is always good to say a truth? .... S: Telling lies/untruths is never helpful - it just leads to more trouble and leads to people losing trust in what one has to say in future. It shows a lack of consideration for others. The person who tells lies can do all sorts of other harmful things as well. This doesn't mean one has to reveal all one's private affairs. Sometimes, silence is the best response or what can always say one prefers not to discuss a topic. Remember that the Bodhisatta broke all the other precepts in his previous lives as a bodhisatta, but never told a lie. ... >I did in my lif a lot of bad things, and I know what I hear, see, feel is due to my past kamma. But it's still hard to really examine/realise this in life - in my present shape. .... S: We have all done a lot of bad things....and good things... in samsara. If there had been no good things, there wouldn't be life as a human now or the opportunity to study the Dhamma. Remember, that it's not Self - not you or me - who does good and bad things......just different dhammas arising and falling away. The best thing of all in life is to understand dhammas now. I know you appreciate this. Metta Sarah ===== #123460 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:07 pm Subject: Ukkanthitabhikkhu Vatthu [Translated by Daw Mya Tin, M.A.] yawares1 Dear Members, I love this story very much, the Buddha said that "if you can only control your mind, you will have nothing more to control; so guard your own mind." *************** The Story of A Certain Disgruntled Bhikkhu While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (36) of this book, with reference to a young disgruntled bhikkhu who was the son of a banker. Once, there lived in Savatthi, the son of a banker. This young man asked the bhikkhu, who used to come to his house for alms, what he should do to be liberated from the ills of life. The bhikkhu instructed him to divide his property into three parts; one part to do business with, one part to support the family and one part to give in charity. He did as he was told and again asked what else should be done next. So he was further instructed; first to take refuge in the Three Gems* and to observe the five precepts; secondly, to observe the ten precepts; and thirdly, to renounce the world and enter the Buddhist religious Order. The young man complied with all these instructions and became a bhikkhu. As a bhikkhu, he was taught the Abhidhamma** by one teacher and the Vinaya by another. Being taught in this way, he felt that there was too much to be learnt, that the disciplinary rules were too strict and too many, so much so that there was not enough freedom even to stretch out one's hands. He thought that it might be better to return to the life of a householder. As a result of doubt and discontent, he became unhappy and neglected his duties; he also became thin and emaciated. When the Buddha came to know about this, he said to the young bhikkhu, "if you can only control your mind, you will have nothing more to control; so guard your own mind." Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 36: The mind is very difficult to see, very delicate and subtle; it moves and lands wherever it pleases. The wise one should guard his mind, for a guarded mind brings happiness. At the end of the discourse, the young bhikkhu and many others attained arahatship. * Three Gems: The Three Gems are the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Samgha, (i.e., the Buddha, the Teaching of the Buddha, and the Buddhist religious Order). ** Abhidhamma: the third great division of the Pitaka comprising the Buddha's philosophical exposition of ultimate realities. ****************** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares #123461 From: Eddie L Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Political Activity by Monks eddielou_us Hi Azita, Sathipattana, in general awareness includes breathing awareness. During meditation, breathing awareness or movement awareness will be good too. Actually, I think meditation can be done "all the time" during the waking hours. Maybe can we say "Constant" meditation. Breathing awareness is just one of many kinds. Some also do walking meditation. "Always" be aware as in Sathipattana. There is one story told by a leading monk during Vipassana meditation class, there was an experienced older monk who had all the necessary prerequisites ("theoretical" knowledge and wisdom) but kept putting off becoming an arahant. One day he decided to become one. So he asked around for assistance but most were reluctant because he was known for having a lot of capabilities and those prerequisites and also ego (mana??). So he finally had to ask a small monk who by his parami (previous meritorius deeds accumulation) already achieved arahantship. But the small monk eventually agreed to show him his last leg to achieve arahantship. Just to test his real readiness with letting go of that hindrance - ego (mana), he asked to be carried on the monk's shoulders in order to cross a small stream without getting the small monk wet. He agreed and did the crossing as wished for. So the small monk knew he is ready, he told the monk there was a lizard in a termite mound with 6 interlinked holes. He said how would one catch that "sneaky" lizard in such scenario? He said just close all the holes except leaving one hole open and wait at that open hole! At that the older monk instantly understood and soon achieved Arahantship! With Metta & Respect! Eddie ________________________________ hallo Eddie, > Hi Azita, > > Based on whatever limited understanding of Buddha's teachings I have gathered, science is unraveling some portion azita: why only in meditation, isnt there breathing now while sitting here reading this? #123462 From: "charlest" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:07 am Subject: Re: The Matter of Civilizations Past and Earlier Buddhas dhammasaro Good friends all, FYI Theravada Cosmology <%20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology_%28Theravada%29> 31 Planes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology_(Theravada) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123463 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:30 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat eddielou_us Hi Ken & All, I have heard before about some issues with meditation if practiced incorrectly especially without some guidance. In Chinese it is like - 走火入魔 pronounced- zou huo ru mo, translated roughly as "taking on fire of effect with the entry of evil". I heard "some, NOT all or many" meditating person can be so impacted and frightened by the unusual resultant mind experience (especially IF not foretold and be prepared for these "possible" effects. Some said it also depends on the meditating person's mind disposition or personality - such as crude, coarse, mild or refined nature, etc. That is why it should come with some precautions - "just in case", such effects come in strong enough to be disruptive and dangerous. Correct me if I am wrong. True or not, I am not so sure but be forewarned maybe always a good policy. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed" I would tend to think - Just like any "physical" medicine, any "mind" medicine can also have adverse effects. I remember a statement that any medicine is more or less toxic. It maybe part of its effectiveness, if used properly. So I think doing anything right and in correct amount is what it takes, so as not to cross over the thin line from "cure" into danger. So experienced guidance from other{s} maybe a good thing. I think it is better to keep an open mind. But I still said meditation is great as always except for this "possible" exception, once is bad enough in case it is true and possible. With Metta & Respect, Eddie > Hi Kevin, > > I wish someone would tell that researcher that *none* of the > > But as Sarah might say, instead of wishing for such things it would be better to have right understanding now. :-) > > Ken H > #123464 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat moellerdieter Hi Alex, all, you wrote: There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of meditation. ================================================= fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive decline typically associated with aging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies D: above doesn't sound really positive (decline ..and ageing ) , but see below below from the original research : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1361002/ Previous research indicates that long-term meditation practice is associated with altered resting electroencephalogram patterns, suggestive of long lasting changes in brain activity. We hypothesized that meditation practice might also be associated with changes in the brain's physical structure. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess cortical thickness in 20 participants with extensive Insight meditation experience, which involves focused attention to internal experiences. Brain regions associated with attention, interoception and sensory processing were thicker in meditation participants than matched controls, including the prefrontal cortex and right anterior insula. Between-group differences in prefrontal cortical thickness were most pronounced in older participants, suggesting that meditation might offset age-related cortical thinning. Finally, the thickness of two regions correlated with meditation experience. These data provide the first structural evidence for experience-dependent cortical plasticity associated with meditation practice. with Metta Dieter #123465 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Rob E, > > How is it a straw man? > What Alex said showed that he agreed with the scientists' conclusions. What you just said above is not a straw man - it is simply accurate - but what you said originally to Alex is. You said: "So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and not with developing wisdom?" It is a straw man on two counts: 1. Alex's statement was an answer to Kevin's posting of a link that gave scientific evidence that meditation was unhealthy, so Alex was refuting the evidence in the same terms in which it was given. It doesn't mean that Alex thinks that scientific evidence is the main judge of anything having to do with meditation. 2. You made it an either/or proposition. Your questions indicated that Alex either has to believe in better brain function OR he has to believe in 'developing wisdom.' It is perfectly possible that Alex could think that good brain structure is a benefit and still believe that the main purpose of meditation is developing wisdom. They are not mutually exclusive as your question suggested. In fact, I believe that is probably Alex's -- as my own -- reasonable position: that of course the purpose of meditation is developing wisdom, but that if there is a health benefit to meditation that is an additional plus, not a deficit. It is in addition to developing wisdom, not instead of developing wisdom. Since you know that Alex is a long-standing student of Dhamma and a dedicated Buddhist for many years, it seems odd that you would jump to the conclusion, given all of the above, that Alex was more interested in brain function than in developing wisdom. I hope that explains my comment. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = > On 26-Mar-12 11:16 AM, Robert E wrote: > > > > Hi Sukin and Alex. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > , Sukinder > > wrote: > > > > Alex: > > > > There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of > > > > meditation. > > > > > > > > ================================================= > > > > fMRI were used to assess the thickness of the brains of twenty > > > > Westerners who had experience with Insight meditation. It was > > > > determined that their brains were thicker in regions of the brain > > > > involved with somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive > > > > processing depending upon the amount of time that they'd spent > > > > practicing. The researchers suggest that this may slow cognitive > > > > decline typically associated with aging > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_meditation#Scientific_studies > > > > =========================================================== > > > > > > > > > > So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and > > not > > > with developing wisdom? > > > > Straw man - nice try. > > > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > #123466 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > In any case, I have known many meditators and almost all of them have > > had consistent increases in peace and wellbeing, not psychosis. > > > > And are you pointing this out simply to counter what was suggested in > the video or do you actually see this as a positive result of meditation? The purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in general as well as mindfulness and panna in particular. However, if someone attacks meditation on the basis of it causing mental imbalance, it is worthwhile to say that this is normally not the case. For one thing, mental imbalance would be the opposite of kusala, particularly if examined on the dhamma level, but no one thinks that mental imbalance is good. In addition, if meditation does have positive effects on the brain in conventional terms, yes I do think that is a good thing, just as I would recommend that a person eat healthy food, not poisonous food. I would also note that the kusala qualities that Buddha and other scriptures speak about in addition to mindfulness and panna include peacefulness, equanimity, joy, etc., all properties of a balanced mind, not an imbalanced mind. But the main point is always the development of awareness and wisdom, no matter what aspect of Dhamma you are talking about. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #123467 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hi Sukin, all, >So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and >not with developing wisdom? >============ Meditation is all about developing wisdom. With metta, Alex #123468 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:44 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau Hi Eddie, ---------- > E: I have heard before about some issues with meditation if practiced incorrectly especially without some guidance. <. . .> > That is why it should come with some precautions - "just in case", such effects come in strong enough to be disruptive and dangerous. Correct me if I am wrong. ------------- KH: This is a very delicate topic of discussion. Meditation performs a central role in all modern forms of Buddhism, and so I should speak respectfully about it. However, in the original form - that is preserved in the ancient texts - meditation performs no role whatsoever. -------------------- > E: True or not, I am not so sure but be forewarned maybe always a good policy. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed" -------------------- KH: Yes, that is good warning as it applies to the modern forms of Buddhism. In the original form, however, the warning was: "Do not grasp the Dhamma wrongly; the Dhamma is not a conventional practice." ------------------------------ > E: I would tend to think - Just like any "physical" medicine, any "mind" medicine can also have adverse effects. I remember a statement that any medicine is more or less toxic. It maybe part of its effectiveness, if used properly. ------------------------------ KH: Yes, and as the scientists have shown, meditation can have seriously adverse effects. The true Dhamma, however, is "lovely in the beginning, lovely in the middle and lovely at the end." It has no adverse effects. ------------------- > E: So I think doing anything right and in correct amount is what it takes, so as not to cross over the thin line from "cure" into danger. So experienced guidance from other{s} maybe a good thing. ------------------- KH: I can see how that advice applies to all conventional forms of Buddhism. To the original (non-conventional) form, however, it does not apply. As I quoted before, the Dhamma is lovely (good, harmless, perfect) in the beginning, middle and end. (Sorry I don't have the reference, but I could find it for you if you like.) ------- > E: I think it is better to keep an open mind. But I still said meditation is great as always except for this "possible" exception, once is bad enough in case it is true and possible. ------- KH: I am glad you have found something you like. I just want you to know, however, that there are no meditation instructions in the ancient Theravada texts. And there is a good reason for their absence. Satipatthana (the teaching of the Buddha) is a matter of right understanding here and now: it is NOT a matter of right performance of instructions (as in a conventional teaching). Ken H #123469 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:37 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123054) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > > RE: There is still a necessary degree of kusala before that degree of understanding can take place. Is that not so? > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: As mentioned above, there is already some accumulated understanding, but it can only manifest, or develop further, under the right conditions. > > > > RE: I would just say again that right understanding of any level is kusala, and therefore I think it is fair to say that while any dhamma, kusala or akusala, can be the object of understanding, right understanding at that moment is always kusala. > > =============== > > J: Of course I would agree that right understanding is always kusala (even when the object of the understanding is an akusala dhamma). But I'm wondering why you would think it necessary to make the point. Are you perhaps reading me as saying/suggesting otherwise (if so, you are misreading me :-))? I don't know what triggered this off at this particular time, but generally speaking the point I've been aiming at by saying that is to give some context to the recently-stated idea that's come up a few times that since any object, kusala or akusala, can be the object of panna, that it doesn't matter if you are "shoveling snow or murdering someone" in terms of the object of panna. However, those making that point seem to ignore the fact that kusala has to arise to have a moment of panna, even if the preceding dhamma is akusala. It just points to the fact that without kusala accumulations panna is not going to arise, and so the murderer is not very likely to have sudden deep insight. The akusala that is the object of panna is therefore most likely not the akusala of someone deeply mired in akusala kamma pathas, for whom there is not much chance that panna and kusala in general has been accumulating or developing strongly. I don't recall thinking that you had this view, which was expressed by some others, so I don't know why I made the point to you at this time, but that's what I was driving at. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123470 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:51 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123056) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: I found a quote from Rob K. on the sotapanna: > > "What they can never do is go back to having wrong view, nor can they ever drink alcohol or lie or steal or kill even an ant. They can never take any other teacher than the Buddha, and they value the triple gem above all things. They give freely as they have eliminated stinginess." > > > > So we have a list of conventional actions that the sotapanna can or cannot engage in. Again, there is an obvious connection between the elimination of the defilements on the level of dhammas and the expression of this in conventional actions and abstentions. There is no example that contradicts this association, is there? > > =============== > > J: I believe what RobK is referring to here is certain forms of akusala kamma patha, which he expresses in conventional language. What basis do you have for believing that? I mean, I guess we can ask him, but he recently said as much in another thread. He says explicitly: nor can they ever drink alcohol or lie or steal or kill even an ant If someone speaks very specifically in conventional terms of activities that cannot be done, and you choose to interpret this as the expression of akusala kamma patha in "conventional terms" then I guess no example can ever come up to contradict you, since you will just translate it back again. That makes it impossible to debate this point, as no evidence is accepted, even when it is explicit. If you were in court and the suspect said "I murdered him" would you accept the explanation that he really meant he only thought of murdering him, or would you take the direct testimony as evidence? > > =============== > > > J: So I don't think there is any correlation to be drawn, except at the post-enlightenment stage. > > > > RE: But that is still a stage and then there is a correlation. So what does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that there is some association between the defilements, which are on the level of dhammas, and what can and cannot be expressed in conventional actions. It's pretty clear. > > =============== > > J: Even accepting your terminology and point of reference, there would be no correlation between the eradication of certain defilements and what *can* be expressed in conventional actions, but only between what *cannot* be expressed. Okay, so then there is a correlation between what cannot be expressed. Fine. That is a restriction on conventional behavior that comes from defilements being eradicated on the dhamma level. so then we are agreed that this correlation exists? > > =============== > > RE: I doubt we can find an example of an ordinary person who *never* falls back in all the areas which a sotapanna expresses, as the sotapanna does. We may not be able to prove someone is a sotapanna by their good behavior, but we *can* tell a non-sotapanna by any instance of killing or other permanently eradicated tendencies. > > =============== > > J: Even the statement "we *can* tell a non-sotapanna by any instance of killing or other permanently eradicated tendencies" is too general I believe. You will remember the sutta quoted here recently in which everybody said that a person who had just died could not be a sotapanna because he had died with alcohol on his breath (they understood what was involved, but their interpretation of the apparent situation was wrong). Well maybe we could agree that "in almost all cases" there will not be an appearance of a sotapanna doing something that is prohibited, and in *all* cases the actuality of the situation will be that the sotapanna will not do something that is prohibited. I doubt there is any instance of a sotapanna even having the appearance of killing someone, is there? A little medicinal alcohol is much easier to misunderstand - happens to me all the time. :-) > > =============== > RE: Therefore the connection between conventional behavior and dhammas is not only established, but is part of the lexicon of enlightenment. > > =============== > > J: Yes, I appreciate that that's your point. But you haven't yet explained what you see as being the significance of this (perceived) connection, for example, how it bears on the development of the path. It means that what we do or don't do in conventional existence has significance for the path, particularly in the case of the fulfillment of kamma patha, which requires that the cetana is strong to the point of causing completion of action. It also means that we can see, to some extent, the signs of dhammas in the conventional behavior of those on the path. Not killing insects doesn't have to be a sign of a certain level of progress on the path, but it may be. In the case of someone like Sarah, who said spontaneously "I would never kill an insect" it may be a natural accompaniment to understanding. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123471 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:48 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: ...Only moments of body consciousness are accompanied by either pleasant or unpleasant vedana (sukkha or dukkha) depending on whether they are kusala or akusala vipaka. > > > > I'm a little confused about body consciousness. Are you using it as a synonym for bodysense, or are they related? > Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/body consciousness are all namas, i.e. dhammas that can experience an object. > > ...For seeing consciousness to experience a visible object, there has already be the occurring of visible object and eye-sense at that instant. ...The feeling in this case is always neutral feeling. > Seeing consciousness arises at such a moment due to past kamma - it is a vipaka citta... > Touching or body consciousness (a nama) experiences tangible object ...through the body-sense (rupa). > The body-sense can be found all over the body, so there can be the experience of tangible object almost anywhere on the body. > ...In this case, however, for reasons I mentioned, the vedana is either pleasant or unpleasant, depending on whether it is kusala or akusala vipaka at that moment. I am feeling pretty thick, but could you repeat why the vedana for body-sense is pleasant or unpleasant, whereas for the other senses it is neutral? ... > S: At the moment of seeing light/visible object or hearing sound, there is no impingement on the body sense and no tangible experience. > However, because there is body-sense all over the body, there are often experiences of tangible object through the body-sense when looking at light or hearing loud noises, but these are at different moments to the experiences through the eye and ear doors. Can light or sound impinge on the body-sense of the eye or ear? Can bright light or harsh sound act as a tactile object after the initial arising of seeing or hearing? We speak of bright light as "hurting the eye." In this sense it seems to make a direct impression on the eye that is not just visual, but causes tactile pain, etc. ... > S: Body-consciousness, like seeing- consciousness or any other consciousness is citta, nama. Body-sense, like eye-sense or any other sense is rupa. Okay, that's good to know. Could you give an example of what is body-sense as a rupa? If there was a moment of pain or pressure, would the pain or pressure be an example of body-sense? Body-consciousness, that would perhaps feel or be aware of the pain, is easier to understand, if that is correct. ... > > > S: Like in the case of when the Buddha was attacked by Devadatta and had a splinter in his foot or when he was dying - akusala vipaka, unpleasant feeling accompanying the body-consciousness, but no aversion. For the arahats, the first dart, but not the second dart. > > > >R: Thanks for mentioning that in this context. I'm a big fan of the 2 arrows. I've always thought it explained in a vey simple way why Buddhism is the ultimate and earliest psychological teaching, although I'm sure some would object to that idea. He made very clear that it is the reaction to what happens, and the proliferation based on it, which leads to the deepest suffering, as opposed to what initially takes place. Anyway, the elimination of the second arrow is so simple to understand - it's a brilliant way of looking at the suffering caused by attachment. > ... > S: Yes. Well put. I needed you to help me to explain this to a yoga friend this morning who was talking about the 'inner goodness' or 'divine nature' within us all;-/ :-) I guess being attached to a "good self" is just as painful as being attached to a "bad self." >>> ...When it is "completed" kamma patha only, such as when there is the deliberate killing of an animal, it is then said to be kamma patha, likely to bring results in future. Would you say that "killing an animal" is just a conventional way of referring to the cetana of that strength, plus accompanying rupas that are experienced as the act of killing? Where do the rupas come into play and how are they caused to arise by such strong akusala cetana, so that the "death of a being" is experienced? I am confused about how the rupas of kamma patha are aroused so that they are experienced as a physical act or circumstance, and how they are related to the kamma-patha cetana that activated the whole event. > > > >R: This makes a lot of sense in ordinary terms - when you merely think of something or have a passing intention, it doesn't harm others. If you speak harshly, that is worse, but obviously to hit or to kill in ordinary terms is much worse. > ... > S: Yes and this is why the sotapanna still has plenty of accumulated akusala, but doesn't intentionally harm others through killing,stealing etc. So that does seem to refer to conventional actions and beings. Would you say that this is just conventional shorthand? And how would you describe the "harming of others" and "killing, stealing, etc." in Abhidhamma terms? > > In Abhidhamma terms, I guess it would be explained in terms of resultant rupas? When cetana is strong enough to cause responsive rupas to arise that we interpret as killing or other akusala actions, then it is kamma patha. Does that make sense? And I guess experiencing those rupas could lead to other akusala reactions. > .... > S: I don't think we can always use our interpretations as any criterion. It is the cetanas themselves. We read in the texts about the criteria that make it akusala kamma patha. For example, in the case of killing, to be full completed kamma patha, there has to be the intention to kill, another sentient being, the action and the loss of life of that being (through mind order, speech or bodily action). For each kind of kamma patha, the criteria can be read in detail in the Atthasalini or other commentaries. How do the commentaries account for "another sentient being" since this is a conceptual reality, yet is necessary for kamma patha? This conjunction of ultimate and conventional realities is what confuses me quite a bit. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123472 From: "charlest" Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:28 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat dhammasaro Good friend Kevin, Please understand this message is simply a curiosity; no more, no less, okay? Several of us have commented... What is your response? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123473 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:57 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] The Hungry Ghosts... dhammasaro Good friends all, If you believe in "making merit" please expand this message to all of your family, friends, monks... and perhaps, most importantly, your enemies... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123474 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi RobE (and Sukin) Butting in if I may. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sukin. > ... > RE: The purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in general as well as mindfulness and panna in particular. > =============== J: Yes, the Path is all about the development of insight (panna). But the Buddha did not himself classify his teachings by reference to whether or not meditation was involved. I'd be interested to know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings are about meditation and which are not. > =============== > RE: But the main point is always the development of awareness and wisdom, no matter what aspect of Dhamma you are talking about. > =============== I'm in full agreement with you on this! Jon #123475 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, >J:Yes, the Path is all about the development of insight (panna). >But the Buddha did not himself classify his teachings by reference >to whether or not meditation was involved. I'd be interested to >know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings >are about meditation and which are not. >=================================================== What about anapanasati (MN118)? What about kayagatasati (MN119) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html [1] "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html This is just beginning. With metta, Alex #123476 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Nina(and Sarah), > D: I think it is good to have both in mind. below from Nagara Sutta > > (excerpt) .. > > ... the > Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble > eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right > > action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. ...> > ------- N: An interesting sutta, here it is explained what that ancient path is: the cetasikas that are the eight path-factors. D: It is said: " That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling..etc. " i.e. the Buddha realized the Law of Dependent Orgination while following that path.. How do you conclude " here it is explained what that ancient path is: the cetasikas that are the eight path-factors" ? (even if we assume that each path factor is presented by a special cetasika of the 52, by what is it explained here?) ------- > N: Lokuttara cittas experience nibbaana. One exception: in the > process > during which enlightenment is attained, the gotrabhu (Change > of lineage) that is mahaa-kusala citta is the first citta > experiencinbg > nibbaana, it is not lokuttara.> > D: actually we are discussing aspects which are hardly our concern. > ------- N: I know. But it is useful to have knowledge of cittas in detail. Some people may take for the experience of nibbaana what is not. D: Knowledge if there is not yet an experience ?And those having experienced which they believe was a glance of nibbana, would probanly claim 'mahaa -kusala citta. How do you prove it wasn't? ------- D: But it seems to me that the experience of nibbana (the glance ) is without any duality of subject and object.. ------- N: The experience (the lokuttara citta) is different from nibbana itself. The lokuttara cittas arise and fall away, they are conditioned. Nibbaana is uncondiitoned, it does not arise and fall away. > -------- D: the experience happens between arising and ceasing ,this between cannot be different , can it? D: > > The/this being is no concept , it has been born and it will die , > > though in abolute reality there is only this D.O. stream of > > conditioned dhammas, marked by citta, cetasika and rupa. > > We call the > > former conventional and the later absolute reality > (of > experience ), don't we? > > Hence for the citta of the former, the > absolute is concept/idea, > > whereas for the citta of the latter the > conventional is the concept.> > > ------ > N: Being, person, these are concepts. But what we call being are in > the > ultimate sense only citta, cetasika and ruupa that are > impermanent and > non-self. > ------- D: > D: Want I meant is: for the person who doesn't know about khandas > (citta,cetasika, rupa and D.O.) , ultimate or absolute is concept > The truth is relative to the angle of view from which it is > expressed . > It makes no sense to tell somebody his view of being (a > person) is concept.> without adding from 'the absolute point of view ' . > The reality is > presented by one's view, isn't it? > -------- N: Citta, cetasika and ruupa are ultimate realities, no matter they are known as such or not known. They are impermanent, no matter this is realized or not realized. D: some people even don't see anicca until they die . But I like to come back to supermundane and supramundane once more. Supramundane we agreed is lokuttara (the 8 aspects of the Noble Ones and Nibbana) a) . All others Lokiya , mundane . However we may distinguish our conventional reality and that what is its base or above , i.e . the khandas . The latter may therefore be called supermundane reality. In this sense the first Noble Truth concerns conventional truth and supermundane truth ( suffering in brief = 5 khanda attachment) The conventional truth is that what happens in our day by day life , the experience of the person (which -until delusion is penetrated /abolished -is a reality, like a mirage in the desert) An agreement on these terms would make our discussion easier. N:We read in the "Gradual Sayings,"Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, §134, Appearance, that the Buddha said: "Monks, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathågata, this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of dhammas prevails, namely, all phenomena are impermanent. About this a Tathågata is fully enlightened, he fully understands it. So enlightened and understanding he declares, teaches and makes it plain. He shows it,he opens it up, explains and makes it clear: this fact that all phenomena are impermanent." ---------- D: Heralictus ' Panta Rhei ' comes into my mind, Nyanaponika supposed that H. respectively the Greeks got that from the Dhamma. > > N: And, what should not be forgotten: the Abhidhamma deals with > seeing, > visible object, attachment, all realities of daily life. > > D: so does- for example- the Maha Satipattihana Sutta besides many > > others > ------ N: Yes, there is Abhidhamma in the suttas. In fact, the suttas are full of Abhidhamma, but this may easily be overlooked. D: I am thinking whether it wouldn't be quite interesting to see the mind states mentioned in the Maha Satipatthana in relation to the 52 Cetasikas , which would be a new? approach instead of going through that what you have already written about in detail. ------- > D: B.T.W.: the cetasika in daily life-project has been neglected . > I am > not sure l about further interest of the forum to proceed (?).> > The last cetasika treated was dosa.... > ------- N: I would say that it depends on your inclination. Let us ask Sarah. D: my inclination is to go through the D.N. text and see its correspondence with our list of cetasikas. What do you (and Sarah ) think? with Metta Dieter #123477 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:09 am Subject: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friends all, Please help me. What did the Historic Buddha Teach about suicide? I ask as I remember a Vietnamese Mahayana Monk committing suicide during the Second Indochina War (Viet Nam War). Now, there are monks in Tibet committing the same way... Self-immolation... Thanks for your help. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfSonr-z9nA #123478 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:27 am Subject: Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qlVVbmEbo&feature=relmfu [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123479 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you for your reply. >N: Atapii, sampajano satima: with ardent energy, with pa~n~naa and >mindfulness. The energy or effort of the eightfold Path is together >with sati and pa~n~naa. They are, all three of them, cetasikas that >can only arise when there are the rigth conditions. >=============================== One of the conditions for effort is to actually exert it. Effort cannot appear without putting trying. >No person, no self at all. The Buddha by teaching anatta is being selective. He denies atta that is nicca and sukha. He does NOT deny validity of effort done here and now. With metta, Alex #123480 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: The purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in general as well as mindfulness and panna in particular. > > =============== > > J: Yes, the Path is all about the development of insight (panna). > > But the Buddha did not himself classify his teachings by reference to whether or not meditation was involved. I would also be interested in how you would see the extensive details on mindfulness of breathing given by the Buddha to *not* be about meditation. In any case, that is exactly how I would define meditation - by defining it the way the Buddha did. He showed how the awareness of breathing can be developed into full mindfulness, pacification of body and mind, samatha and jhana, etc. We have talked about this a few times before, so I doubt this is a surprise, and I will not be surprised when you tell me that none of the descriptions of mindfulness of breathing should be taken as instructions. There are further detailed techniques outlined in the Visudhimagga which have been quoted before, and I know that you would say that those are not instructions either, including the instruction to find a teacher and get instruction which is clearly stated in the Visudhimagga! > I'd be interested to know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings are about meditation and which are not. Pretty simple. When the Buddha says "By practicing mindfulness of breathing one can develop x, y or z" I take that as a meditation instruction. In other words, when the Buddha describes various practices and their results, I take those descriptions of practice as descriptions of practice. "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." That is a description of a path of practice based on mindfulness of breathing. It is breathing meditation practice. "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' That is a description of breathing meditation practice. > > =============== > > RE: But the main point is always the development of awareness and wisdom, no matter what aspect of Dhamma you are talking about. > > =============== > > I'm in full agreement with you on this! It's a pleasure to be in agreement with you. I will enjoy the moment. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #123481 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Hi Rob E, (Alex and Kevin), > > How is it a straw man? > > What Alex said showed that he agreed with the scientists' conclusions. > > What you just said above is not a straw man - it is simply accurate - > but what you said originally to Alex is. > > You said: > "So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and > not with developing wisdom?" > > It is a straw man on two counts: > 1. Alex's statement was an answer to Kevin's posting of a link that > gave scientific evidence that meditation was unhealthy, so Alex was > refuting the evidence in the same terms in which it was given. It > doesn't mean that Alex thinks that scientific evidence is the main > judge of anything having to do with meditation. > Suk: I did not read Kevin's original message as an attempt to highlight the negative effects of meditation, but wrong approach and thinking on the part of the scientists and wrong attitude of the meditation tradition.To me people going crazy as a result of meditation is not the kind of evidence I would appeal to. Indeed the very idea of measuring the effects of meditation while calling it Buddhist practice is dumb. It shows that the meditators who agree to such tests have wrong understanding as to what in fact is the nature and function of Buddhist practice. Now if Alex was firm as to the purpose of Buddhist practice, why would he counter Kevin's post with this, Quote: "There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific studies of meditation."? Even if he did distinguish health benefits from the true purpose of Buddhist practice, to have pointed out the above and in fact put 'positive' in capital letters, shows that he does and as you also do, tie the two together. And I ask, why? If the practice is about the development of wisdom, what matters any effect on the brain or heart or spleen or kidney? Indeed why even be drawn in by the conclusions made by the scientist, after all wisdom is about the reality "now" whereas the scientists are talking in terms of concepts and the future? So if the scientists say that the changes in the brain "may slow cognitive decline typically associated with aging" and you are impressed, this reflects value I consider wrong. > 2. You made it an either/or proposition. Your questions indicated that > Alex either has to believe in better brain function OR he has to > believe in 'developing wisdom.' > Suk: Or it could mean as I've tried to show above, that although Alex thinks that practice is aimed at wisdom, he does not in fact know what wisdom is. If he knew what patipatti really is then he'd not give any consideration to what the scientist say in this regard. > It is perfectly possible that Alex could think that good brain > structure is a benefit and still believe that the main purpose of > meditation is developing wisdom. They are not mutually exclusive as > your question suggested. > Suk: See, even you can't avoid making an association between Buddhist practice and health benefit. I think the two are in fact mutually exclusive in light of the fact that wisdom is aimed at the present moment whereas the reference to brain is a proliferation in terms of future. With some understanding regarding kamma and vipaka and the nature of sankhara dhammas, one is lead more to think in terms of "cause" now rather than future results. Any understanding now has arisen and fallen away and when it arises next, no one knows. What vipaka is in store, this too is unknowable. So what really is the understanding when thinking about the Dhamma, to agree with the conclusion about practice as leading to better brain function? While there is some validity in the suggestion that a person who is mentally unstable and subjects himself to a 10, 20 or 30 day retreat runs the risk of losing it since this may well be pointing to the nature of sankhara dhammas as cause, what on the other hand, does the idea of better brain function exactly point to, is it some dhamma/s which is kamma and / or vipaka? > > In fact, I believe that is probably Alex's -- as my own -- reasonable > position: that of course the purpose of meditation is developing > wisdom, but that if there is a health benefit to meditation that is an > additional plus, not a deficit. It is in addition to developing > wisdom, not instead of developing wisdom. > Suk: And you really think that there is a direct link between meditation and good brain structure? Anyway, what kind of understanding it is behind the thought that health benefit is an additional plus? > > Since you know that Alex is a long-standing student of Dhamma and a > dedicated Buddhist for many years, it seems odd that you would jump to > the conclusion, given all of the above, that Alex was more interested > in brain function than in developing wisdom. > > I hope that explains my comment. > Suk: Sorry about that, but I read very little of what Alex writes. So I do not have enough information to determine what his position might be with regard to the kind of scientific studies. Perhaps he has even written about the topic before, but all I had and judged from was that one response to Kevin. In any case, I did not imply as you accuse me of, that "Alex was more interested in brain function than in developing wisdom". What I had in mind, I've expressed above. Metta, Sukin #123482 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > > In any case, I have known many meditators and almost all of them have > > > had consistent increases in peace and wellbeing, not psychosis. > > > > > > > And are you pointing this out simply to counter what was suggested in > > the video or do you actually see this as a positive result of > meditation? > > The purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in > general as well as mindfulness and panna in particular. However, if > someone attacks meditation on the basis of it causing mental > imbalance, it is worthwhile to say that this is normally not the case. > Suk: I would say that meditation is the result of wrong understanding and the mental imbalance is due to having subjected oneself to unusual activities over a long period of time, given the accumulated akusala in general. ;-) > For one thing, mental imbalance would be the opposite of kusala, > particularly if examined on the dhamma level, but no one thinks that > mental imbalance is good. In addition, if meditation does have > positive effects on the brain in conventional terms, yes I do think > that is a good thing, just as I would recommend that a person eat > healthy food, not poisonous food. > Suk: When talking about food and health, this is conventional and nothing to do with 'practice'. When talking about practice, this must be about particular mental realities. Mental imbalance, like the effect of alcohol is condition for much akusala to arise, and the focus is on the latter. After all, good mental balance is not on the other hand, a cause for kusala, is it? Here again we see the error in referring to better brain function and health when talking about practice. Kusala and akusala follow a law unrelated to that of physical health. > I would also note that the kusala qualities that Buddha and other > scriptures speak about in addition to mindfulness and panna include > peacefulness, equanimity, joy, etc., all properties of a balanced > mind, not an imbalanced mind. > Suk: "Mind" and not "brain". And this mind is momentary, so is any equanimity and calm which accompanies it. And while the Buddha talked in terms of the development of panna and other kusala, he did not make an association with health the way you appear to be doing. The peace he talked about is reference to eradication of particular defilements or at least their suppression. But this is incidental and not the focus of his teachings. > > But the main point is always the development of awareness and wisdom, > no matter what aspect of Dhamma you are talking about. > Suk: I think that it is the *only* point. If for example in talking about overeating the Buddha said that this was cause for lethargy, he was talking about the danger of lethargy in the case of those still with the tendency. An arahat could eat however much, but there would be no lethargy for him. If the Buddha talked about the need to exercise, this had nothing to do with the wisdom any individual had. Moderation in eating has to do with understanding the nature of greed and not so much how good health is maintained. Besides this is quite different from the idea that 'practice' leads to better brain function. One is about rupa conditioning rupa whereas the other is making a wrong association between the idea of 'practice' and particular rupas. Besides one is immediate whereas this other involves speculation and dependent on strength of belief both of which are not to be encouraged. Metta, Sukin #123483 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sukinderpal Hi Alex, > >So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and >not with developing wisdom? > >============ > > Meditation is all about developing wisdom. So what was the significance of pointing out that positive conclusion arrived at by the scientists? Metta, sukin #123484 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 nilovg Dear Alex, Op 28-mrt-2012, om 3:49 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > One of the conditions for effort is to actually exert it. Effort > cannot appear without putting trying. ------ N: Exerting is effort, and it needs conditions. Effort for what, and how? I think the answer is that only pa~n~naa can know this. In order that effort is right it has to be together with right understanding. When developing understanding of the naama or ruupa that appears, also effort plays its part. Effort, energy, or courage, they are translations of viriya. Don't we need courage? ------- > > >No person, no self at all. > > The Buddha by teaching anatta is being selective. He denies atta > that is nicca and sukha. He does NOT deny validity of effort done > here and now. ------- N: Effort is needed, but not with an idea of: "I manage this". ---- Nina. #123485 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friends all, FYI Uploaded by KnewWorldNoing on Mar 17, 2012 March 14th is the 3rd anniversary of the "3.14 Incident" in Tibet. On this day, a Tibetan monk set fire to himself to protest the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) suppression of religion and culture. On the same day, 4000 students paraded on the streets asking for Tibetan language education in Tongren and Zeku County. At the same time, 500 Tibetan monks and Tibetans gathered in Tongren County Plaza. They held photos of the Dalai Lama, protesting against the CCP's rule in Tibet. They expressed their support to the self-immolating monks. Over the past year, there have been many self-immolation protests in Tibet, leading to over 20 deaths. To commemorate them, the Tibetan government in exile organized a memorial on February 8. Some Tibetan living in Tibet held Buddhist activities on this day. But the CCP named these activities as being induced by the Dalai Lama and the government in exile. Qinghai police ordered the Tibetans to "surrender", otherwise they will be punished. In addition, the local authority said that more than half of the monks in Tibet's Qamdo Karma Temple don't have a proper identification and were sent back to their hometown. The authority asked them to do farming and controlled them strictly with a rule stating that without local government approval, they can't leave the village. Villagers and monks staying in the temple were forced to speak on a stage saying they denounce the Dalai Lama and devote themselves to the CCP. If they refused, they were beaten. The Qamdo Karma Temple Management committee filmed the entire condemnation process. On March 14, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao told Chinese and foreign reporters in Beijing that self-immolation is "an extreme behavior which hurts social harmony". The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile spoke with Radio Free Asia. The reason behind the self-immolations is Beijing's policy of repression and cultural genocide in Tibet. Gongga Tashi, The Dalai Lama's Tibetan issue's envoy in North America, spoke about the issue. Under the CCP's totalitarian regime, Tibetans have no freedom to use petitions, rallies, hunger strikes or other peaceful demonstrations to express their dissatisfaction. Under this situation, they have to use self-immolation to protest. How can it be said this action is hurting the social harmony. Gongga Tashi, "When Tibetans have a parade, the CCP shot them dead in front of other Tibetans. Didn't this action hurt Tibetans? Didn't this action hurt social harmony? So, Wen Jiabao was trying to use this argument to justify." Stability comes from the heart, commented Gonggar Tashi. If the CCP wants Tibet to be stable, it must obtain the heart of the Tibetan people first. It needs to implement a policy that favors Tibetans. To use violence to control will never achieve stability. In fact, it's the CCP itself that pursues separatism, to stir up a nationalist sentiments. Gongga Tashi, "Recently, there have been 28 incidents in Tibet. In principle, the CCP regime needs to think over why such self-immolations have happened. This is a very crucial factor. Unfortunately, the CCP didn't do this, and didn't help to solve the issues in Tibet." At present, three Tibetan are hunger striking in front of the U.N. Headquarters in New York. They are Cheungsa Renboqie, Yeshe Tenzin from India, and Dorje Jeb from the US. They listed 5 demands that ask the U.N. to respond: 1, the United Nations to send an independent investigation team to Tibet to survey; 2, Pressure the CCP government to lift the informal martial law in Tibet; 3, Allow independent media to enter Tibet to understand the real situation; 4, Ask the CCP to release all Tibetan political prisoners who are led by Gêndün Qoikyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama. 5, Urge theCCP to stop so-called patriotism education in Tibet. 《神韵》2011世界巡æ¼"新亮点 http://www.ShenYunPerformingArts.org/ peace... Chuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUrvtQV4Lg0 #123486 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:51 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friends all. Truly, I thought I read some time in the past about the Historic Buddha and suicide... I do not think the Historic Buddha taught suicide was okay... Perhaps, it is taught in Mahayana and/or Tibetan Buddhism? Comments? Thanks. peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123487 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 3/28/2012 6:51:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friends all. Truly, I thought I read some time in the past about the Historic Buddha and suicide... I do not think the Historic Buddha taught suicide was okay... Perhaps, it is taught in Mahayana and/or Tibetan Buddhism? Comments? Thanks. peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ============================== The Buddha did teach that a human existence is rare and valuable. However, I recall one sutta - I have no reference - in which a monk committed suicide, and the Buddha indicated that the monk attained nibbana at the moment of death - which suggests to me the momentary and changing quality of mentality, it only taking an instant for the mind to turn from akusala to kusala, and, in particular, towards nibbana. (Obviously, the preconditions had to have occurred.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123488 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:21 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Yep, en my ancient age ah forgot 'bout der sutta you referenced. If'en ah 'member; id had to do wid ah bhikkhu commiting suicide but became an arahant jes b'fore death... Seriously, would someone provide the sutta and the rationale? Thanks. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123489 From: Vince Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email perhaps this can be interesting: Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/keown.pdf best, Maipenrai wrote: > Yep, en my ancient age ah forgot 'bout der sutta you referenced. If'en ah 'member; id > had to do wid ah bhikkhu commiting suicide but became an arahant jes b'fore death... > Seriously, would someone provide the sutta and the rationale? Thanks. > peace... #123490 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:28 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friend Vince, Warm thanks for the reference. I have not had time to study it; but, what little I read is quite interesting. Thanks again. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ................................................................................\ ....................................... > > perhaps this can be interesting: > > Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa > http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/keown.pdf > > best, > ''''''''''''''' Rest deleted by Chuck ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''\ ''''''''''''''' #123491 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:51 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat eddielou_us Hi Ken, Thanks for your advice. With these many years of my own search and precious little experience gathered so far, the most important thing to me is being in touch with what the actual reality is, that is if it can be verified this way. I understand some aspects of things simply can not be verified because we lack certain capabilities, insights & understanding. So we have to go by our strong, reliable rock - the Tipitaka hoping it is the real ultimate of "All" phenomena. So far, I still think it is or at least hold a lot of secrets most people are trying to unravel. Back to the caveat about the meditation, I think taking precaution is always good, because we are talking about playing with the state of mind. If we heard about some news we have to be watchful and that that does "not" in any way mean Buddha's teachings is dangerous or incorrect. Do remember, Gautama before attaining Buddhahood, he was disturbed and obstructed in myriads of ways by Mara, so it can turn scary and dangerous with Mara's attacks. It was not all peaceful Buddha's attainment. Some even said, such upset with some meditators can be caused by the influence from advantage-taking evil beings. Whatever, taking care and be forewarned is always good before such an endeavor. Also you mentioned that: ...However, in the original form - that is preserved in the ancient texts - meditation performs no role whatsoever. ... I would not think so because based on what I had gathered so far, Gautama Buddha eventually attained Buddhahood through Vipassana meditation, having learned other kinds of meditation from other masters with not much "desired" result. Also Dhamma, to me is about the Buddha's views or concepts or doctrine of "All ( - meaning, anything to do with form (physical matter), formless, consciousness (mind aspect), etc. basically "Everything"). I am open to your correct corrections. Thanks again. Metta & Respect, Eddie "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Eddie, > > ---------- > > E: I have heard before about some issues with meditation if practiced incorrectly especially without some guidance. > <. . .> > > That is why it should come with some precautions - "just in > Ken H > #123492 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Sukin, I wanted to counterbalance the claim that meditation is all bad. It has many documents positive effects. Just because some people had deep psychological issues and had problems with meditation, it doesn't mean that the fault is in meditation. The fault was with the person. It is not screw driver's fault that someone used it as a weapon rather then as a tool. Of course meditation can be dangerous. So is crossing the street. One needs to properly use it. With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > >So meditation is aimed at better brain structure and functioning and >not with developing wisdom? > > >============ > > > > Meditation is all about developing wisdom. > > > So what was the significance of pointing out that positive conclusion arrived at by the scientists? > > Metta, > > sukin > #123493 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sukin, Alex and Kevin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Suk: I did not read Kevin's original message as an attempt to highlight > the negative effects of meditation, but wrong approach and thinking on > the part of the scientists and wrong attitude of the meditation > tradition. Well that is what you took out of it, but not what the article was about obviously. Hard to say what Kevin's point was if it was not to highlight the negative effects of meditation as depicted in the video, but I guess we could ask him if you think it was a different point. > To me people going crazy as a result of meditation is not the > kind of evidence I would appeal to. Indeed the very idea of measuring > the effects of meditation while calling it Buddhist practice is dumb. It > shows that the meditators who agree to such tests have wrong > understanding as to what in fact is the nature and function of Buddhist > practice. I understand that this is your opinion, and that it is shared by a number of people on dsg. I don't agree with that view at all, and I don't think that the Buddhist suttas or Visudhimagga say anything to support that view. In fact, I have still never seen a direct quote from a commentary that states that meditation is not a part of Buddhist practice. Do you have one handy? I'm starting to think that such a quote does not exist, and that the idea that meditation is not correct Buddhist practice is a modern rather than an ancient notion. > Now if Alex was firm as to the purpose of Buddhist practice, why would > he counter Kevin's post with this, > > Quote: "There have been many POSITIVE results found in scientific > studies of meditation."? Because that was the subject at hand. If someone presents evidence that meditation is unhealthy in conventional terms, it makes sense to refute that evidence if one takes up the topic. You would of course be perfectly justified in saying that such a topic doesn't interest you and is not relevant to Buddhist practice. Then you don't have to discuss whether meditation is healthy or not. > Even if he did distinguish health benefits from the true purpose of > Buddhist practice, to have pointed out the above and in fact put > 'positive' in capital letters, shows that he does and as you also do, > tie the two together. And I ask, why? Well, some of us see the positive effects of certain activities to be related to the development of wisdom, peacefulness, insight, etc. It's a conventional view, I am sure, and one that you will reject, which is fine, but it is a possible way of looking at things. We can see the absolute nature of kusala dhammas and the development and accumulation of kusala and still see this reflected or supported by certain activities, which can also be considered kusala. I know that this is something that many here vehemently disagree with, but that's the way it is. > If the practice is about the development of wisdom, what matters any > effect on the brain or heart or spleen or kidney? Unbelievable as it may be, there are some people who think that the effect on the brain has a relationship to the development of wisdom, because such people believe that the brain exists and has some relevancy. It is not that the brain causes wisdom, but it is a reflection and vehicle of certain kinds of mental processes taking place. Again, I know that in the dhamma view that the brain is a fiction, the body is an illusion and objects do not really exist at all, this is just silly, but some people believe that dhammas and conventional structures do have a relationship. Indeed why even be > drawn in by the conclusions made by the scientist, after all wisdom is > about the reality "now" whereas the scientists are talking in terms of > concepts and the future? So if the scientists say that the changes in > the brain "may slow cognitive decline typically associated with aging" > and you are impressed, this reflects value I consider wrong. I think that in addition to disagreeing with Alex, and some of what I have said above, it would be worthwhile to ask Kevin what his purpose was in posting the video. That may shed some light on whether he thinks the effect on the brain is relevant or not, which would be interesting to know. We can't really know if we just speculate. > > 2. You made it an either/or proposition. Your questions indicated that > > Alex either has to believe in better brain function OR he has to > > believe in 'developing wisdom.' > > > > Suk: Or it could mean as I've tried to show above, that although Alex > thinks that practice is aimed at wisdom, he does not in fact know what > wisdom is. If he knew what patipatti really is then he'd not give any > consideration to what the scientist say in this regard. I understand that this is your opinion, but it is not the only way of looking at such things. It is possible that an interest in brain activity and the development of wisdom can coexist and have some relevancy, although I know that this is not your view. As far as I know, neither Buddha nor the ancient commentaries instruct anyone to ignore the brain or ignore kusala and akusala conventional activities. But if you have a quote, I will be very interested to study it. > > It is perfectly possible that Alex could think that good brain > > structure is a benefit and still believe that the main purpose of > > meditation is developing wisdom. They are not mutually exclusive as > > your question suggested. > > > > Suk: See, even you can't avoid making an association between Buddhist > practice and health benefit. I didn't make an association in that statement. I just said that one could think that a healthy brain was a "benefit." I didn't say it was a benefit to the development of wisdom. In this statement I just said that one could be interested in both, not that they were necessarily associated. > I think the two are in fact mutually > exclusive in light of the fact that wisdom is aimed at the present > moment whereas the reference to brain is a proliferation in terms of > future. With some understanding regarding kamma and vipaka and the > nature of sankhara dhammas, one is lead more to think in terms of > "cause" now rather than future results. Having a healthy brain also reflects things that are taking place in the moment. A healthy brain does not exist in the future. > Any understanding now has arisen and fallen away and when it arises > next, no one knows. What vipaka is in store, this too is unknowable. So > what really is the understanding when thinking about the Dhamma, to > agree with the conclusion about practice as leading to better brain > function? Well it would be a benefit in conventional terms. I agree that a healthy brain is not a dhamma and does not apply directly to dhamma theory. However the conclusion that the brain is healthy may be a secondary reflection of certain kusala dhammas and accumulations that have arisen, seeing such results indirectly. > While there is some validity in the suggestion that a person who is > mentally unstable and subjects himself to a 10, 20 or 30 day retreat > runs the risk of losing it since this may well be pointing to the nature > of sankhara dhammas as cause, what on the other hand, does the idea of > better brain function exactly point to, is it some dhamma/s which is > kamma and / or vipaka? I personally think that the development of kusala may be reflected in certain observable qualities of the brain, but I don't have anything more specific to say about it at this time, since I am neither a great Dhamma expert, nor a neurologist. > > In fact, I believe that is probably Alex's -- as my own -- reasonable > > position: that of course the purpose of meditation is developing > > wisdom, but that if there is a health benefit to meditation that is an > > additional plus, not a deficit. It is in addition to developing > > wisdom, not instead of developing wisdom. > > > > Suk: And you really think that there is a direct link between meditation > and good brain structure? I am not a scientist so I have no direct knowledge of this. I do think that experientially, meditation has positive effects, but that is subjective. Other people report various positive impacts of meditation as well, but much of that could be considered conventional rather than path-oriented. Still, I think in a general way that positive things are good, but that is a very simple thing to think. > Anyway, what kind of understanding it is > behind the thought that health benefit is an additional plus? It is a conventional thought that applies mainly to everyday life from a conventional standpoint. Still, that doesn't make it a bad thing. I think I have distinguished to some extent what is of the Dhamma and what is conventional in this situation. Any connections between the two would have to be explored in more depth. > > Since you know that Alex is a long-standing student of Dhamma and a > > dedicated Buddhist for many years, it seems odd that you would jump to > > the conclusion, given all of the above, that Alex was more interested > > in brain function than in developing wisdom. > > > > I hope that explains my comment. > > > > Suk: Sorry about that, but I read very little of what Alex writes. So I > do not have enough information to determine what his position might be > with regard to the kind of scientific studies. Perhaps he has even > written about the topic before, but all I had and judged from was that > one response to Kevin. In any case, I did not imply as you accuse me of, > that "Alex was more interested in brain function than in developing > wisdom". What I had in mind, I've expressed above.f That is fine. My only original point was that it does no have to be an either/or proposition. One can say that meditation is healthy in conventional terms, and still understand that the purpose of Buddhist practice is the development of wisdom. But I agree that these two areas could easily become confused. I still wonder what Kevin had in mind when he posted this link. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #123494 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > Suk: I think that it is the *only* point. If for example in talking > about overeating the Buddha said that this was cause for lethargy, he > was talking about the danger of lethargy in the case of those still with > the tendency. An arahat could eat however much, but there would be no > lethargy for him. If the Buddha talked about the need to exercise, this > had nothing to do with the wisdom any individual had. Moderation in > eating has to do with understanding the nature of greed and not so much > how good health is maintained. Besides this is quite different from the > idea that 'practice' leads to better brain function. One is about rupa > conditioning rupa whereas the other is making a wrong association > between the idea of 'practice' and particular rupas. Besides one is > immediate whereas this other involves speculation and dependent on > strength of belief both of which are not to be encouraged. The above is a fantastically interesting set of statements, filled with provocative possibilities. I mean it. If I find I have the strength to go into some of it, I will come back to this and discuss it with you. Some of it is beyond my understanding, but intriguing, such as: "One is about rupa conditioning rupa whereas the other is making a wrong association between the idea of 'practice' and particular rupas." If you feel like explaining that particular statement in more detail, I would be very interested. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123495 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Dear Nina, >N: Exerting is effort, and it needs conditions. >============================================== Right. So is putting one's shoes on. Just because something conditioned, it doesn't mean that it doesn't occur. It occurs due to conditions. >N:Effort for what, and how? To understand anicca, dukkha, anatta more so as for nibbida to be developed which then leads to viraga->vimutti. >N: Effort is needed, but not with an idea of: "I manage this". >========================================================== Sure. So do great meditation masters teach. With metta, Alex #123496 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE: I don't agree with that view at all, and I don't think that the >Buddhist suttas or Visudhimagga say anything to support that view. >In fact, I have still never seen a direct quote from a commentary >that states that meditation is not a part of Buddhist practice. Do >you have one handy? I'm starting to think that such a quote does >not exist, and that the idea that meditation is not correct Buddhist >practice is a modern rather than an ancient notion. >==================================================== You are absolutely correct. If there were teachings of "don't meditate" in the suttas and commentaries, I am sure that sites such as this and RobertK's would post these quotes all over. I would also not object on that either. The only thing that remains to support DSG position is to find some more ambiguous passages, take them out of context of teaching as a whole, create some strawman argument, reinterpret some words and claim that Buddha taught no-practice. With metta, Alex #123497 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE (Sukin, Alex), > > Suk: ...Indeed the very idea of measuring > > the effects of meditation while calling it Buddhist practice is dumb. It > > shows that the meditators who agree to such tests have wrong > > understanding as to what in fact is the nature and function of Buddhist > > practice. > > RobE: ...I understand that this is your opinion, and that it is shared by a number of people on dsg. I don't agree with that view at all, and I don't think that the Buddhist suttas or Visudhimagga say anything to support that view. In fact, I have still never seen a direct quote from a commentary that states that meditation is not a part of Buddhist practice. pt: I suspect a big part of the problem is that "meditation" and "practice" are used by different people to mean different meanings. E.g. the most apparent difficulty is whether we take "meditation" (and in particular "buddhist meditation" as corresponding to the Pali term "bhavana") to generally refer to an activity (sitting down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc), or to generally refer to a citta arising with certain cetasikas and having a certain object. And then a further difficulty is whether we interpret a term used in the suttas and other texts in the light of a/kusala activities, or in the light of a/kusala dhammas. I was supposed to discuss this with you some time ago, and in connection with my discussion with Sarah and Jon in Manly some months ago, but it doesn't look like I'll have time to come back to those topics any time soon, so perhaps let's just do it here. One thing that I find helpful to consider - when one is "mindful of breathing" for example as spoken about in the suttas and Vsm, what does that mean really? As in: a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? b) what makes that moment/state of consciousness (be classified as) "kusala"? c) what makes it "samatha bhavana" (tranquility meditation)? d) what makes it "vipassana bhavana" (insight meditation)? I think that it is the particular understanding of these issues that basically determines what we really mean by such terms as "meditation", "practice", "path", etc. Perhaps you could give your answers to the a-d, I'll give mine, and we can compare our notes and then see if this is already complicated enough or we have room to further complicate the discussion with terms like energy, jhana, chakras, etc. Best wishes pt #123498 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:58 pm Subject: Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charlest" wrote: > > Good friends all, > > Please help me. What did the Historic Buddha Teach about suicide? > > I ask as I remember a Vietnamese Mahayana Monk committing suicide > during the Second Indochina War (Viet Nam War). > > Now, there are monks in Tibet committing the same way... > > Self-immolation... > > Thanks for your help. > > peace... > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfSonr-z9nA > Hello Chuck, all, These may be of interest: Suicide and Euthanasia according to Theravada http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6087&start=0 Sappadasa chooses life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.06.06.than.html Dharma data - Suicide http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd30.htm with metta Chris #123499 From: "Kevin" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat farrellkevin80 Kevin: Hello Sukin, Rob E, Alex, and all; Sukin: > Hi Rob E, (Alex and Kevin), Kevin: Sorry for not posting more in this thread since the original message. I have been quite busy as of last few days. Will try to write more, perhaps tomorrow. Take care, Kevin #123500 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:51 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau Hi Eddie, ---- <. . .> > E: I understand some aspects of things simply can not be verified because we lack certain capabilities, insights & understanding. ---- KH: I agree there are aspects of things that need to be verified by insight. But what are those 'aspects of things?' How do we find out what they are? We find out by studying the Dhamma. There is no other way. ------------ > E: So we have to go by our strong, reliable rock - the Tipitaka hoping it is the real ultimate of "All" phenomena. So far, I still think it is or at least hold a lot of secrets most people are trying to unravel. ------------ KH: For ordinary people they are undiscovered secrets, but they are known to the wise (ariyans). Even so, it is a matter of degree, isn't it? Some ordinary (non-ariyan) people know a great deal about the "aspects of things that need to be understood." And they have learnt what they know by studying the Dhamma. Not by sitting in meditation. As you say above, "we have to go by the Tipitaka." And I would add: we can not get there by religious rites and rituals. -------------------------- > E: Back to the caveat about the meditation, -------------------------- KH: Before we go back to that can we ask, was meditation taught by the Buddha? Is there even one example in the Tipitaka of a meditation instruction? If you look carefully you will find there isn't. All of the so-called "vipassana meditations" that people practise today have been invented in relatively modern times. ---------------- > E: I think taking precaution is always good, because we are talking about playing with the state of mind. If we heard about some news we have to be watchful and that that does "not" in any way mean Buddha's teachings is dangerous or incorrect. --------------- KH: Fair enough, but since meditation is not what the Buddha taught, there is no need to do it. And so there is no need to be watchful of its dangers. ------------------------- > E: Do remember, Gautama before attaining Buddhahood, -------------------------- KH: I remember Gautama lived a life of extreme luxury followed by a life of extreme asceticism. But you and I are not Bodhisattas; we don't need to explore those wrong paths. ---------------------------------- > E: he was disturbed and obstructed in myriads of ways by Mara, so it can turn scary and dangerous with Mara's attacks. ---------------------------------- KH: That happened when he was following the two extremes - before he discovered conditionality (the middle way). ----------------- > E: It was not all peaceful Buddha's attainment. ----------------- KH: The actual attainment was totally peaceful. The wrong practices prior to attainment were not peaceful. -------------------------- > E: Some even said, such upset with some meditators can be caused by the influence from advantage-taking evil beings. Whatever, taking care and be forewarned is always good before such an endeavor. -------------------------- KH: Wrong view (wrong understanding of the path) is the cause of all such upset. -------------------------------- > E: Also you mentioned that: ...However, in the original form - that is preserved in the ancient texts - meditation performs no role whatsoever. ... > I would not think so because based on what I had gathered so far, Gautama Buddha eventually attained Buddhahood through Vipassana meditation, having learned other kinds of meditation from other masters with not much "desired" result. -------------------------------- KH: The Bodhisatta developed right understanding (vipassana), but not by concentrating on breathing. Understanding of any sort is developed by studying a teaching, wisely considering it and observing it in practice. Supramundane right understanding is no different in that regard. (Admittedly the Bodhisatta did not have a Dhamma teacher in his final lifetime, but he had several before that.) ---------------- > E: Also Dhamma, to me is about the Buddha's views or concepts or doctrine of "All (- meaning, anything to do with form (physical matter), formless, consciousness (mind aspect), etc. basically "Everything"). > I am open to your correct corrections. Thanks again. ---------------- KH: Thank you. I am sure you will find, sooner or later, that the corrections I have offered are consistent with the Tipitaka. The Buddha did not teach meditation, nor did he teach any other formal (deliberate) course of action. He taught conditionality. Conditionality is totally different from any other teaching. If we find ourselves thinking the Dhamma is similar to other explanations of ultimate reality we really must stop and think again. Ken H #123501 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat rjkjp1 Some stuff here http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=341&pid=1537&st=0&#entry153\ 7 #123502 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 nilovg Dear Alex, Op 29-mrt-2012, om 2:29 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N:Effort for what, and how? > > A: To understand anicca, dukkha, anatta more so as for nibbida to > be developed which then leads to viraga->vimutti. ------- N: Certainly true, but before that the phenomena appearing in daily life have to be studied with awareness. Their arising and falling away cannot be realized immediately. The difference between moments of awareness and no awareness has to be known. Also: the difference between naama and ruupa has to be known. Whatever dhamma experiences something, be it seeing, feeling, attachment, all these have to be understood as naama, the element that experiences, different from ruupa. ------ Nina. #123503 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? sarahprocter... Dear Chuck & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charlest" wrote: > > > > Good friends all, > > > > Please help me. What did the Historic Buddha Teach about suicide? .... S: Please also see messages saved under "Suicide" in "Useful Posts" in the files section of DSG. There are many canonical sources and commentarial notes there. As Howard pointed out, many changing mind-states - like now. Metta Sarah ===== #123504 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:22 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I am feeling pretty thick, but could you repeat why the vedana for body-sense is pleasant or unpleasant, whereas for the other senses it is neutral? .... S: It is said that this is because the impact is greater. Various similes are given. I think that our common-sense tells us this is so - everyone knows that there can be painful (or pleasurable) feelings occurring at moments of experiencing tangible objects through the body-sense. When it seems that there is painful or pleasurable feeling at moments of seeing or hearing, smelling or tasting, they are in fact the feelings occurring with the javana cittas in those sense door processes or, more commonly, with the subsequent mind door cittas, at moments of ignorance, attachment or aversion. ..... > > S: At the moment of seeing light/visible object or hearing sound, there is no impingement on the body sense and no tangible experience. > > > However, because there is body-sense all over the body, there are often experiences of tangible object through the body-sense when looking at light or hearing loud noises, but these are at different moments to the experiences through the eye and ear doors. > >R: Can light or sound impinge on the body-sense of the eye or ear? .... S: The only rupas which are experienced through the body-sense are the 3 tangible objects - solidity, temperature and motion (pathavi, tejo and vayo dhatu). There is body-sense all over what we take for the eye and ear. The example of the bright light and the painful feeling around the eyes is an example of moments of bodily experience accompanied by painful feeling experiencing these tangible objects, not of seeing - thought usually all these experiences get mixed up together as we think about them. ... > R: Can bright light or harsh sound act as a tactile object after the initial arising of seeing or hearing? We speak of bright light as "hurting the eye." In this sense it seems to make a direct impression on the eye that is not just visual, but causes tactile pain, etc. ... S: See above - different moments. Hearing (accompanied by neutral feeling) just hears sound, bodily experience (which in this case is accompanied by painful feeling) experiences tangible object, leading to ideas of the "harsh sound hurting the ears" and so on. As you say, there is tactile pain, no doubt! .... > ... > > S: Body-consciousness, like seeing- consciousness or any other consciousness is citta, nama. Body-sense, like eye-sense or any other sense is rupa. > >R: Okay, that's good to know. Could you give an example of what is body-sense as a rupa? If there was a moment of pain or pressure, would the pain or pressure be an example of body-sense? .... S: The body-sense all over the body is the point of contact. The tangible object which is experienced has to impact somewhere. We think it is our arm or shoulder that is painful, but actually, rupa doesn't experience anything - it is the body consciousness accompanied by painful feeling which is the "pain" as it experiences the tangible object, such as the heat or the hardness, at any point, at any body-sense. Of course, there is pleasant and unpleasant body consciousness which experiences tangible objects all the time, like now whilst touching the computer keys. .... >R: Body-consciousness, that would perhaps feel or be aware of the pain, is easier to understand, if that is correct. ... S: Body-consciousness just experiences the tangible object. The accompanying feeling is painful or pleasurable. If there is awareness arising, this is in with subsequent javana cittas, not with the vipaka cittas. They just experience their objects, they don't understand, they are not aware of anything. Metta Sarah p.s part 2 later.... ======= #123505 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Dear Nina, >N:Effort for what, and how? > >A: To understand anicca, dukkha, anatta more so as for nibbida to > be developed which then leads to viraga->vimutti. > ------- >N:... the phenomena appearing in daily life have to be studied with >awareness....The difference between moments of awareness and no >awareness has to be known. Also: the difference between naama and >ruupa has to be known. Whatever dhamma experiences something, be it >seeing, feeling, attachment, all these have to be understood as >naama, the element that experiences, different from ruupa. >===================================== And here I believe the effort is required, to study these things withing the framework of 4NT. With metta, Alex #123506 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:31 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator RobertK, > Some stuff here >http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=341&pid=1537&st=0&#entry15\ 37 >================================= Walking across the street is dangerous. A child can hurt himself using a screwdriver... Any tool can be misused in the hands of inept user. The fault is not with the tool but with the user. Oh... And TM is NOT Buddhist meditation... With metta, Alex #123507 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:40 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt, Sukin, & Alex. Sorry, this is turning out long. If you want to take it gradually, one section or sub-topic at a time, that is fine with me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE (Sukin, Alex), > > > > Suk: ...Indeed the very idea of measuring > > > the effects of meditation while calling it Buddhist practice is dumb. It > > > shows that the meditators who agree to such tests have wrong > > > understanding as to what in fact is the nature and function of Buddhist > > > practice. > > > > RobE: ...I understand that this is your opinion, and that it is shared by a number of people on dsg. I don't agree with that view at all, and I don't think that the Buddhist suttas or Visudhimagga say anything to support that view. In fact, I have still never seen a direct quote from a commentary that states that meditation is not a part of Buddhist practice. > > > pt: I suspect a big part of the problem is that "meditation" and "practice" are used by different people to mean different meanings. E.g. the most apparent difficulty is whether we take "meditation" (and in particular "buddhist meditation" as corresponding to the Pali term "bhavana") to generally refer to an activity (sitting down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc), or to generally refer to a citta arising with certain cetasikas and having a certain object. Nice to hear from you, pt, and as usual, I appreciate your measured and interested approach to our endemic controversial issues here. To start out with, there is some conflict between those who read the Buddha's words and say to themselves, "He said x," as opposed to those who say "He said X, but that is a conventional way of saying Y." There is a basic conflict between those two views and it is at the root of all the other disagreements on dsg. Those who say that the Buddha's suttas have to be taken in the "context of the entire Dhamma" do not specify exactly how the "entire Dhamma" is to be understood 'as a whole,' but it seems that the main point of this idea is to interpret the suttas in the light of the ancient commentaries, which analyze the suttas in a particular way. The most important thing that the commentaries seem to do, in my view, is to take the enlightenment factors out of their original setting, and set them up as independent dhammas that arise without any particular training or practice. So this conflict is built-in. Instead of jhana being a long, deep, gradual practice in relaxation, withdrawal of the senses and development of mindfulness of more subtle breath and internal states, such as piti and sukkha, etc., it simply becomes an arising factor which can come in any setting with the right "accumulations." These accumulations are not seen as the result of practice, but as the result of previous involuntary arisings. In this view, there is no work to be done and jhana just happens or doesn't happen. Same with vipassana. This is quite the opposite of the original context of the Buddha's teachings on how such qualities are attained. Because the Abhidhamma and commentaries focus their energy on getting into the specific details of conditional factors and how they influence dhammas, they don't seem to focus a lot on whether practice is the cause of these accumulations or not, so it is left to some extent to the reader to decide what is being pointed at as the way in which right practice occurs. As far as I know, the commentaries never say that "sitting meditation is beside the point," or that "purposely sitting down to focus on the breath" is wrong practice, or even that conventional activities have no effect on accumulations. So it seems to me that it takes an additional interpretive scheme applied to the commentaries to reach this conclusion, and that step is supplied by K. Sujin, not by the commentaries themselves. It is a modern interpretation of the ancient commentaries and the suttas that is given by special emphasis on the momentary dhamma and its properties. The above interpretation is seen by those who adhere to it as a "traditional interpretation," but it really is not traditional, if one takes traditional to mean the regular and agreed-upon way that something has been practiced and understood over the many years of is existence. Certainly the Abhidhamma is part of the tradition, but the interpretation of it that says that meditation is not part of the path is not traditional at all. Even in countries where the Abhidhamma is given equal weight to the suttas, such as Burma, meditation is still practiced alongside Abhidhamma study. It is a very modern, very localized and radical view that sitting meditation and purposeful cultivation of mindfulness is not a part of the path. Calling it traditional is a smokescreen to take something that is controversial and attempt to normalize and justify it without a truthful examination of whether it is really traditional or not. Recently I dug up an old post of Rob K. in which he asserted that a sotappana would never kill an insect and would never have a single alcoholic drink - conventional abstentions. When I pointed this out to Jon, he asserted that Rob K. was talking about dhammas in conventional form. This is the way the suttas are taken as well, so there is no ability to give any evidence for the opposing side, because any evidence from sutta, or even our own living friends, is simply reinterpreted as a "conventional expression of dhammas." So he argument is self-ratifying and enclosed in an inpenetrable bubble of prior justification that is self-perpetuating. The result is that the totally external view that is unstated in any sutta or commentary - that meditation *practice* is wrong view and wrong practice and inherently promotes self-view - cannot be challenged even with live evidence, and is taken as self-evident. With that in mind, it is possible to discuss the subject with someone like you, who seems to at least leave open the possibility that a true moment of bhavana could arise within a meditative framework, but I will add that the possibility of agreement on how this would take place still seems rather slim. I do agree with those here that there is a distinction between simply sitting and paying attention to the breath, and a true moment of sati or panna arising, so we agree there. Where we don't agree is that I truly believe that the practice of sitting and paying attention to the breath will greatly increase the development of such moments, unless it is done horribly incorrectly. The simple practice of directing to the attention to the breath so that one becomes more aware of momentary sensations, and so that the mind gradually learns to focus and concentrate, seems to me to develop mental skills that will promote the arising of corresponding dhammas. I am regularly attacked for this view, but I have never seen an actual contradiction between such practice and such moments arising. So my view of what meditation is is two-fold: 1. It is the arising of kusala dhammas that apply to the path, such as sati, sampajanna, samatha and panna. 2. It is the practice described by the Buddha over and over again in the suttas, in which one sits down to purposely focus on the breathing, and from there gradually develops a variety of states that eventually lead to enlightenment. This second view of meditation as practice is described in detail in the anapanasati sutta, the satipatthana sutta and the Visudhimagga. The way in which these descriptions are denied as practice by those who disagree with this straightforward view of the suttas is to say at different times that: a. These are descriptions not instructions. b. They are meant to show those already doing such practices how to use them to allow insight to arise. c. They are only meant for advanced practitioners in whom mindfulness and other factors are already steady. None of the above show that the suttas are *not* about a regular, systematic practice, even if they are correct. And there is no evidence that the above is the correct way to interpret them. > And then a further difficulty is whether we interpret a term used in the suttas and other texts in the light of a/kusala activities, or in the light of a/kusala dhammas. I think the solution to this is to assert that akusala can arise at any time and does not promote the path, and that kusala either supports the path or directly promotes it, if it is an enlightenmen factor. The question that remains as always is whether practice, done with basic correct understanding, will accumulate more of these qualities. I admit that one must believe that conventional actions have some kusala potential in order for this to be the case, such as the conventional action of paying attention to the breath. That will probably be the sticking point, but I agree with you about kusala vs. akusala. I don't agree with those who say that akusala is so pernicious that one cannot do any practice without promoting akusala and that kusala can only arise by being left alone. > I was supposed to discuss this with you some time ago, and in connection with my discussion with Sarah and Jon in Manly some months ago, but it doesn't look like I'll have time to come back to those topics any time soon, so perhaps let's just do it here. > > One thing that I find helpful to consider - when one is "mindful of breathing" for example as spoken about in the suttas and Vsm, what does that mean really? As in: > > a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? > b) what makes that moment/state of consciousness (be classified as) "kusala"? > c) what makes it "samatha bhavana" (tranquility meditation)? > d) what makes it "vipassana bhavana" (insight meditation)? My initial response is to say that, as always my view is two-fold: 1. mindfulness of breathing can be engaged as a conventional intention which will lead one to the specific moments that arise from that involvement. 2. actual moments of mindfulness are the ones in which sati actually arises, rather than merely being intended. That would go for other factors as well, such as samatha. The object of sati will always be a specific dhamma, and my guess is that the object of sati will be a rupa of the breath, such as movement, hardness/pressure or something along those lines. I understand that in the development of samatha, that the breath as concept can be the object, but that is a more complicated topic that I don't think we have to look at first. I am going to leave aside the question of "what makes the moment kusala" for this first pass, but will be happy to discuss it as we get into it. I think it's also a complex topic, and the source of much contention. > I think that it is the particular understanding of these issues that basically determines what we really mean by such terms as "meditation", "practice", "path", etc. Perhaps you could give your answers to the a-d, I'll give mine, and we can compare our notes and then see if this is already complicated enough or we have room to further complicate the discussion with terms like energy, jhana, chakras, etc. I hope the above gives a good, though controversial, start to my end of the discussion. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123508 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hi Pt, RobertE, all, >pt:E.g. the most apparent difficulty is whether we take "meditation" >(and in particular "buddhist meditation" as corresponding to the >Pali term "bhavana") to generally refer to an activity (sitting >down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc), or >to generally refer to a citta arising with certain cetasikas and >having a certain object. And then a further difficulty is whether we >interpret a term used in the suttas and other texts in the light of >a/kusala activities, or in the light of a/kusala dhammas. >============== The suttas and VsM clearly say about "sitting down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc". My belief is that when the Buddha has said X, he really meant X and not Not-X (its opposite). I believe that He knew how to properly express his teaching and was not deceptive on purpose. Ex: when He said to sit down having crossed legs, He really meant that and not "don't do it!". The commentaries are also in agreement with this. They also teach what the Buddha has taught regarding intentional practice. In anapanasati sutta, Ptsm, VsM and non-Theravada works all interpret Anapanasati as being intentional development. Only the certain teachers in 20th century have taught something else from suttas (such as anapanasati), Ptsm, and VsM. With metta, Alex #123509 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:20 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, Warm thanks for the reference. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123510 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:31 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Suicide: What did the Historic Buddha Teach? dhammasaro Good friend Chris, Warm thanks for the references. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123511 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 nilovg Dear Alex, Op 29-mrt-2012, om 18:19 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > And here I believe the effort is required, to study these things > withing the framework of 4NT. ----- N: Yes, correct. Remember: atapii, sampajano satima. Effort together with right understanding and sati. ----- Nina. #123512 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:45 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Rob. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I am feeling pretty thick, but could you repeat why the vedana for body-sense is pleasant or unpleasant, whereas for the other senses it is neutral? > .... > S: It is said that this is because the impact is greater. Various similes are given. I think that our common-sense tells us this is so - everyone knows that there can be painful (or pleasurable) feelings occurring at moments of experiencing tangible objects through the body-sense. When it seems that there is painful or pleasurable feeling at moments of seeing or hearing, smelling or tasting, they are in fact the feelings occurring with the javana cittas in those sense door processes or, more commonly, with the subsequent mind door cittas, at moments of ignorance, attachment or aversion. > ..... Okay, so I guess the idea is that if someone shows you something horrible and you have a painful reaction, that is the citta reacting to it through formations/feelings rather than any painfulness in the object itself; whereas if someone stabs you with a spear, the bodysense actually experiences a tangible pain. Is that on the right track? So it seems like it is very wisely being said that most of the sense-based suffering we experience is really akin to the "second arrow," whereas the pain in the bodysense can very well be the "first arrow," - a real tangible impact. That is very interesting! ... > > > S: Body-consciousness, like seeing- consciousness or any other consciousness is citta, nama. Body-sense, like eye-sense or any other sense is rupa. > > > >R: Okay, that's good to know. Could you give an example of what is body-sense as a rupa? If there was a moment of pain or pressure, would the pain or pressure be an example of body-sense? > .... > S: The body-sense all over the body is the point of contact. The tangible object which is experienced has to impact somewhere. We think it is our arm or shoulder that is painful, but actually, rupa doesn't experience anything - it is the body consciousness accompanied by painful feeling which is the "pain" as it experiences the tangible object, such as the heat or the hardness, at any point, at any body-sense. Of course, there is pleasant and unpleasant body consciousness which experiences tangible objects all the time, like now whilst touching the computer keys. > .... > >R: Body-consciousness, that would perhaps feel or be aware of the pain, is easier to understand, if that is correct. > ... > S: Body-consciousness just experiences the tangible object. The accompanying feeling is painful or pleasurable. If there is awareness arising, this is in with subsequent javana cittas, ... So body-consciousness experiences tangible object, and it may be felt [by vedana?] to be painful or pleasurable, while arising citta may then become aware of what is taking place? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #123513 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:47 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hm... should be "Hi Sarah" above all this, not "Hi Rob." Sorry for that. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > I am feeling pretty thick, but could you repeat why the vedana for body-sense is pleasant or unpleasant, whereas for the other senses it is neutral? > > .... > > S: It is said that this is because the impact is greater. Various similes are given. I think that our common-sense tells us this is so - everyone knows that there can be painful (or pleasurable) feelings occurring at moments of experiencing tangible objects through the body-sense. When it seems that there is painful or pleasurable feeling at moments of seeing or hearing, smelling or tasting, they are in fact the feelings occurring with the javana cittas in those sense door processes or, more commonly, with the subsequent mind door cittas, at moments of ignorance, attachment or aversion. > > ..... > > Okay, so I guess the idea is that if someone shows you something horrible and you have a painful reaction, that is the citta reacting to it through formations/feelings rather than any painfulness in the object itself; whereas if someone stabs you with a spear, the bodysense actually experiences a tangible pain. Is that on the right track? > > So it seems like it is very wisely being said that most of the sense-based suffering we experience is really akin to the "second arrow," whereas the pain in the bodysense can very well be the "first arrow," - a real tangible impact. That is very interesting! > > ... > > > > > S: Body-consciousness, like seeing- consciousness or any other consciousness is citta, nama. Body-sense, like eye-sense or any other sense is rupa. > > > > > >R: Okay, that's good to know. Could you give an example of what is body-sense as a rupa? If there was a moment of pain or pressure, would the pain or pressure be an example of body-sense? > > .... > > S: The body-sense all over the body is the point of contact. The tangible object which is experienced has to impact somewhere. We think it is our arm or shoulder that is painful, but actually, rupa doesn't experience anything - it is the body consciousness accompanied by painful feeling which is the "pain" as it experiences the tangible object, such as the heat or the hardness, at any point, at any body-sense. Of course, there is pleasant and unpleasant body consciousness which experiences tangible objects all the time, like now whilst touching the computer keys. > > .... > > >R: Body-consciousness, that would perhaps feel or be aware of the pain, is easier to understand, if that is correct. > > ... > > S: Body-consciousness just experiences the tangible object. The accompanying feeling is painful or pleasurable. If there is awareness arising, this is in with subsequent javana cittas, ... > > So body-consciousness experiences tangible object, and it may be felt [by vedana?] to be painful or pleasurable, while arising citta may then become aware of what is taking place? > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = > #123514 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Pt, RobertE, all, > > > >pt:E.g. the most apparent difficulty is whether we take "meditation" >(and in particular "buddhist meditation" as corresponding to the >Pali term "bhavana") to generally refer to an activity (sitting >down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc), or >to generally refer to a citta arising with certain cetasikas and >having a certain object. And then a further difficulty is whether we >interpret a term used in the suttas and other texts in the light of >a/kusala activities, or in the light of a/kusala dhammas. > >============== > > > The suttas and VsM clearly say about "sitting down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc". > > My belief is that when the Buddha has said X, he really meant X and not Not-X (its opposite). I agree. There is no justification for ignoring all of that and endowing it with insignificance based on an opposing philosophy, no matter how ardently it is seen as correct. > I believe that He knew how to properly express his teaching and was not deceptive on purpose. Ex: when He said to sit down having crossed legs, He really meant that and not "don't do it!". > > The commentaries are also in agreement with this. They also teach what the Buddha has taught regarding intentional practice. In anapanasati sutta, Ptsm, VsM and non-Theravada works all interpret Anapanasati as being intentional development. Only the certain teachers in 20th century have taught something else from suttas (such as anapanasati), Ptsm, and VsM. I agree. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #123515 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi Alex and RobE, > > A: The suttas and VsM clearly say about "sitting down, folding legs, breathing, being mindful, being wise, etc". > > > > My belief is that when the Buddha has said X, he really meant X and not Not-X (its opposite). > > RE: I agree. There is no justification for ignoring all of that and endowing it with insignificance based on an opposing philosophy, no matter how ardently it is seen as correct. pt: Thanks for your replies. I understand your frustration, but I think this apparent conflict of opinions might be resolved only if we focus a bit more on the fundamentals. So, I hope you don't mind if I leave these issues for later and go back to the other part of the thread that deals with fundamentals (hope to reply later today to that post). Best wishes pt #123516 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:57 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123428) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: That doesn't really matter, since whether it is "fixed" conventional behavior does not impact the point at all. The point is whether *any* conventional behavior in *any* way corresponds to dhammas and I think it is clear that it does. > =============== J: If there's no specific conventional behaviour that corresponds to the individual akusala kamma pathas in question, I don't see how a general statement in terms of conventional behaviour can be made. All that can be said is that the relevant akusala kamma patha can no longer be committed. Now we can say, loosely speaking, that this will include murder; but since the kamma patha involved extends to much more than that, there can be no general rule based on that particular expression. And this is quite apart from the fact that `murder/homicide' can mean different things to folks in different jurisdictions. The correlation is between the attainment of stream entry and the eradication of the kilesa that could support the akusala kamma patha in question.. > =============== > RE: So if certain kamma pathas will not take place after a certain stage, the conventional behavior associated with that kamma patha will also not take place ever again. What a coincidence! No murderous kamma patha necessitates no conventional murder as well. Unless one would like to say that murderous kamma patha can longer arise, but conventional murder can still be done by a sotapanna or an arahat. > =============== J: Of course the vast majority of folks go through life without ever committing, or even thinking of committing, [conventional] murder anyway! Before stream entry it was a (largely theoretical) possibility, but after stream entry not. There is no further `correlation' to be made. > =============== > RE: The correspondence is there, no matter how one may want to philosophically avoid the association for reasons unknown to me. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to say "murder will not take place at this stage, and of course that means that the murderous cetana and kamma patha which are the real events that would take place are correspondingly not going to arise." > =============== J: Fine, except that instead of "murder will not take place and thus the cetana that supports the akusala kamma patha will not arise", I would say that the kilesa that supports the akusala kamma patha has been eradicated and accordingly there is no longer the (theoretical) possibility that murder could be committed. > =============== > RE: The fact that someone has never committed murder does not make them an arahat, but an arahat cannot commit murder. Again, simple logic, but not reversible. It only applies to the arahat, not to non-murder in general. > =============== J: Right, a sotapanna cannot commit murder. I have no problem agreeing with that :-)) > =============== > RE: There is no kamma patha without an action that fulfills it. You can then if you like look at the action and say "it is really composed of cittas and rupas, not the 'murder of a person,' but that again would make my point: conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha. The correspondence is right there. > =============== J: Right. I have no problem with this particular statement ("conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha"). If you like to think of this as a "correspondence" then I suppose that's fine. > =============== > RE: So then the sotapanna *can* appear to commit conventional murder, or not? Obviously the answer is no, so the correspondence is still there. Unless you disagree with that. > =============== J: Now wait a minute. Here you're moving away from the straight Dhamma principle that has been discussed so far ("a sotapanna is incapable of committing certain akusala kamma patha including that conventionally known as murder") and starting to discuss a story about sotapannas, namely, Could they *appear to commit* akusala kamma patha? I really wonder if there's any purpose in pursuing such an issue. (You might like to consider this: Could a sotapanna be convicted of, say, murder? For example, as a result of deliberately false testimony by someone holding a grudge, as a result of a mistaken identification, or on the basis of circumstantial evidence from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.) > =============== > RE: From my point of view, if one refrains from killing an insect, there has to be awareness of an insect, and then either no arising of the cetana to kill it, or restraint of the impulse to kill it. > =============== J: As I pointed out in an earlier message, restraint need not be accompanied by awareness/panna. > =============== RE: I can imagine that certain namas would be arising around those moments, and be aware of various rupas, but if there is no awareness of the insect as an insect, the issue of whether to kill it or not would never come up in the first place. > =============== J: The awareness that is satipatthana would not arise together with a citta that has the concept of insect as its object. Jon #123517 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi RobE (123480) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: I would also be interested in how you would see the extensive details on mindfulness of breathing given by the Buddha to *not* be about meditation. In any case, that is exactly how I would define meditation - by defining it the way the Buddha did. > =============== J: I perhaps did not make myself clear, so let me start again. You made the comment that the purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in general, including mindfulness and panna in particular. And from previous discussions I know that you see the development of the path as involving both meditation-type practice and daily-life development. Now as we know, `meditation' is not a term that was used by the Buddha himself. So I'd be interested to know how you decide whether, in a given instance, the Buddha is talking about meditation-type practice or daily-life development. For example, which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta would you see as involving meditation practice, and which parts as not (or not necessarily) involving that? > =============== > > J: I'd be interested to know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings are about meditation and which are not. > > RE: Pretty simple. When the Buddha says "By practicing mindfulness of breathing one can develop x, y or z" I take that as a meditation instruction. In other words, when the Buddha describes various practices and their results, I take those descriptions of practice as descriptions of practice. > =============== J: Yes, but you talk about both "practice" and "meditation practice". How do the 2 differ, and what would be an example from the suttas of "practice" that is not "meditation practice"? Jon #123518 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 29-mrt-2012, om 18:40 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > As far as I know, the commentaries never say that "sitting > meditation is beside the point," or that "purposely sitting down to > focus on the breath" is wrong practice, or even that conventional > activities have no effect on accumulations. So it seems to me that > it takes an additional interpretive scheme applied to the > commentaries to reach this conclusion, and that step is supplied by > K. Sujin, not by the commentaries themselves. It is a modern > interpretation of the ancient commentaries and the suttas that is > given by special emphasis on the momentary dhamma and its properties. ------- N: I find especially the last sentence of interest. The momentary dhamma. So well explained by the Atthassalini. It helps so much to understand anattaa. Life exists indeed in one moment only, it is so true. Seeing now, and it is gone already, hearing now, and gone already. Like and dislike, they are all gone before we think about them. There are many factors that are conditions for the arising of kusala: quote from my Vis. study Ch XIV, 82: < When there is strong confidence in the Triple Gem and the development of kusala, including right understanding, there are conditions for kusala citta with pa~n~naa that is accompanied by pleasant feeling and enthusiasm (piiti). The Tiika reminds us that pleasant feeling accompanies the citta until it dissolves. Feeling does not last, it falls away immediately, there is no self who can cause feeling to be pleasant. We read in the (Expositor p. 100): As to the word 'bent on' , the Pali has: pari.naamita, bend to, change into. There can be a change from akusala to kusala if one understands the right conditions to be cultivated. An abundance of right reflection is also a condition for kusala. We need good friends who give us stimulating talks. We then read that the Tiika refers to the four wheels that are favorable conditions for the arising of kusala citta with right understanding. These four wheels are: living in a suitable place, association with noble persons, right aspiration, and meritorious deeds formerly done. (See AN IV, 4, 1, The Wheel). Further on the Tiika mentions as conditions for the citta to be accompanied by wisdom: past kamma, maturity of the faculties, that is to say: the faculties of confidence, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom which have to be developed. Another factor is one’s age. The age from forty to fifty is the most favorable age to develop wisdom according to the Visuddhimagga. Kusala citta accompanied by wisdom needs many conditions, some stemming from the past and others that are of the present. The Dhammasanga.nii, when dealing with the first type of kusala citta, states: and then it enumerates the many cetasikas that assist the citta. The “Expositor” (p. 76 etc.) explains numerous meanings of samaya, such as: time or occasion, concurrence of causes, moment. It explains that the should be classed as the one moment in the sense of occasion, they form the occasion for the production of merit. It states: It shows the extreme shortness of the time in the occurrence of kusala citta and it points out . It stresses that advice has been given that we should have strenuousness and earnestness in pa.tivedha, realization of the truth, since this is very difficult: Samaya can also mean group, and this shows the simultaneous occurrence of many dhammas. The kusala citta is accompanied by many cetasikas, each performing their own function. By samaya is shown the concurrence of conditions, the mutual contribution towards the production of a common result. The Expositor explains with regard to samaya as condition: When we learn about all the different factors that are necessary conditions for the arising of one moment of kusala citta with paññaa we are reminded that kusala citta does not belong to us and that it falls away immediately. Kusala citta is very rare and even more so kusala citta with paññaa. We have accumulated a great amount of akusala and thus there are conditions for its arising very often. This is a pungent reminder to develop all kinds of kusala for which there is an opportunity. ------- I understand that it must be frustrating for you to hear: . But this should be seen in the right context: no "we" who can do anything. Certainly, there are only conditioned dhammas. But we behave all the time as if there is a self, and we do not notice it. It is so persistent. That is why we appreciate Kh Sujin's reminders time and again. All of the teachings, including the commentaries point to anattaa. I understand that people may misinterprete her reminders. If you would meet her you would notice that she is full of a sense of urgency, not being neglectful at all. Also in her speech: she has no accumulations for 'animal talk' (talk about kings, animal, etc.) which is a waste of time. In "Survey" she carefully explains about samatha but warns against wrong samaadhi. The wrong interpretation of samatha which is dangerous. That is all. It is so easy to have wrong understanding of mindfulness of breathing, and this subject should be studied very carefully. Why should anybody be against it, people have different inclinations. ----- Nina. * #123519 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:40 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123428) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: That doesn't really matter, since whether it is "fixed" conventional behavior does not impact the point at all. The point is whether *any* conventional behavior in *any* way corresponds to dhammas and I think it is clear that it does. > > =============== > > J: If there's no specific conventional behaviour that corresponds to the individual akusala kamma pathas in question, I don't see how a general statement in terms of conventional behaviour can be made. > > All that can be said is that the relevant akusala kamma patha can no longer be committed. Now we can say, loosely speaking, that this will include murder; but since the kamma patha involved extends to much more than that, there can be no general rule based on that particular expression. And this is quite apart from the fact that `murder/homicide' can mean different things to folks in different jurisdictions. > > The correlation is between the attainment of stream entry and the eradication of the kilesa that could support the akusala kamma patha in question.. I agree with you about the correlation between stream entry and eradication of the kilesas, but disagree with you about the conventional expression of the kamma pathas in question. If there were no correlation between the dhammas that relate to intending and committing a murder and the commission of an actual murder, there would be the possibility of committing a physical murder, but just not having the kamma pathas involved. This is actually impossible. One cannot commit a conventional murder without the dhammas arising that hate and intend the eradication of the being. That *is* the correlation. When the kilesas are eradicated, the conventional act cannot take place, period. That is pretty firm stuff, and a most excellent correlation! As for jurisdictions, I think we can agree that what we mean by murder is not whether it is legal or not, but whether we are desiring and intending the killing of another being. I don't know how the "being" part translates into dhammas, but I do know that without desire to kill a being, there is no kamma patha for murder. According to Sarah's recent post to me, the kamma patha for murder not only requires the desire to kill the being, but the actual carrying out of the killing of the being. So you may help me sort that one out. > > =============== > > RE: So if certain kamma pathas will not take place after a certain stage, the conventional behavior associated with that kamma patha will also not take place ever again. What a coincidence! No murderous kamma patha necessitates no conventional murder as well. Unless one would like to say that murderous kamma patha can longer arise, but conventional murder can still be done by a sotapanna or an arahat. > > =============== > > J: Of course the vast majority of folks go through life without ever committing, or even thinking of committing, [conventional] murder anyway! I'm not sure about the *vast* majority. I think many people *do* at least momentarily have the feeling of wanting to kill someone or something, but the moment passes without any serious intention or action taking place. And I think almost everyone is familiar with killing an insect, although there may be some exceptions on dsg! My old pal Anders, who originally introduced me to dsg, used to let mosquitoes drink his blood, but only til they were reasonably full, then shoo them away. Everything in moderation! :-) He said that they deserved to have a meal too! > Before stream entry it was a (largely theoretical) possibility, but after stream entry not. There is no further `correlation' to be made. That's a big correlation. Can you please address the fact that the sotappana cannot drink, cannot kill anyone, etc., etc. and that this *cannot* in and of itself is a correlation to the eradication of the kilesas. I would just like to address that directly. How can that *not* be in and of itself, a very clear correlation? > > =============== > > RE: The correspondence is there, no matter how one may want to philosophically avoid the association for reasons unknown to me. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to say "murder will not take place at this stage, and of course that means that the murderous cetana and kamma patha which are the real events that would take place are correspondingly not going to arise." > > =============== > > J: Fine, except that instead of "murder will not take place and thus the cetana that supports the akusala kamma patha will not arise", I would say that the kilesa that supports the akusala kamma patha has been eradicated and accordingly there is no longer the (theoretical) possibility that murder could be committed. It's only theoretical because it's a negative, but the fact that there is no chance of it taking place is a fact, not a possibility, is it not? > > =============== > > RE: The fact that someone has never committed murder does not make them an arahat, but an arahat cannot commit murder. Again, simple logic, but not reversible. It only applies to the arahat, not to non-murder in general. > > =============== > > J: Right, a sotapanna cannot commit murder. I have no problem agreeing with that :-)) Well then there is a conventional action that he cannot do. That's that! > > =============== > > RE: There is no kamma patha without an action that fulfills it. You can then if you like look at the action and say "it is really composed of cittas and rupas, not the 'murder of a person,' but that again would make my point: conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha. The correspondence is right there. > > =============== > > J: Right. I have no problem with this particular statement ("conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha"). If you like to think of this as a "correspondence" then I suppose that's fine. If you accept that, it's more than a correspondence. It means that namas and rupas translate into conventional actions and vice versa. > > =============== > > RE: So then the sotapanna *can* appear to commit conventional murder, or not? Obviously the answer is no, so the correspondence is still there. Unless you disagree with that. > > =============== > > J: Now wait a minute. Here you're moving away from the straight Dhamma principle that has been discussed so far ("a sotapanna is incapable of committing certain akusala kamma patha including that conventionally known as murder") and starting to discuss a story about sotapannas, namely, Could they *appear to commit* akusala kamma patha? I really wonder if there's any purpose in pursuing such an issue. I mean it the same way as "commit the murder." I was only saying "appear" out of deference to the conventional nature of the action. You can strike that if you like. > (You might like to consider this: Could a sotapanna be convicted of, say, murder? For example, as a result of deliberately false testimony by someone holding a grudge, as a result of a mistaken identification, or on the basis of circumstantial evidence from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.) That's not what I meant to point to, but of course that is possible, and has nothing to do with either actual murder or the kamma patha of the murder. It's just mistaken identity, false witness by someone else, etc. But: does he sotapanna have the potential for such negative vipaka? I really don't know, personally. > > =============== > > RE: From my point of view, if one refrains from killing an insect, there has to be awareness of an insect, and then either no arising of the cetana to kill it, or restraint of the impulse to kill it. > > =============== > > J: As I pointed out in an earlier message, restraint need not be accompanied by awareness/panna. I am talking about a case where one purposely refrains from killing, not just by coincidence. > > =============== > RE: I can imagine that certain namas would be arising around those moments, and be aware of various rupas, but if there is no awareness of the insect as an insect, the issue of whether to kill it or not would never come up in the first place. > > =============== > > J: The awareness that is satipatthana would not arise together with a citta that has the concept of insect as its object. Well then I guess the eradication of the kilesas involved takes care of the non-desire for murder without any special awareness having to arise to "remind" the sotapanna not to kill. Probably just not in his vocabulary anymore. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123520 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: I understand your frustration, but I think this apparent conflict of opinions might be resolved only if we focus a bit more on the fundamentals. So, I hope you don't mind if I leave these issues for later and go back to the other part of the thread that deals with fundamentals (hope to reply later today to that post). No problem. Alex and I had our chance to agree vehemently with each other, and that should suffice for a while. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #123521 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Nina. Thanks very much for your inspiring post. I will have to study it at more length. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: I find especially the last sentence of interest. The momentary > dhamma. So well explained by the Atthassalini. It helps so much to > understand anattaa. Life exists indeed in one moment only, it is so > true. Seeing now, and it is gone already, hearing now, and gone > already. Like and dislike, they are all gone before we think about > them. ... #123522 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123436) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: You would say that the sotapanna cannot have the kamma patha of murderous intent arise. Would you not also say that he cannot murder anyone? Either it is possible or it is not. If you are willing to assert that the sotapanna can have no kamma patha for murder arise, but that he could be seen to murder someone, then I will admit that there is no relation between dhammas and conventional actions. Otherwise, the relation is more than obvious. > =============== J: As Dhamma propositions, the 2 statements you make here are of quite a different order. The first, that "the sotapanna can have no kamma patha for murder arise", is good Dhamma (taking `murder' to refer to certain akusala kamma patha), since it is confirmed by the sutta text I quoted recently. The second, that "the sotapanna cannot be seen to murder someone", doesn't seem to have any real Dhamma content. Having the appearance of doing or not doing something is not the same as actually doing or not doing the something. As you have said, it is something that is seen to follow as a matter of logic. But it doesn't lead anywhere. What are the underlying dhammas involved? > =============== > RE: Within the conventional world, all people will agree that the sotapanna never murders anyone, and that is all I am asserting. The "illusory" conventional murder cannot appear to take place when the kamma-patha for murder no longer arises. Would you not agree with that? > =============== J: I have no problem with the assertion that the sotapanna has eradicated the kilesa that would support the killing of another being. But to assert anything about a sotapanna's general behaviour, such that s/he "never murders anyone", or that "conventional murder cannot appear to take place", seems to be another line of thinking altogether. > =============== > RE: Just clarifying what is important in the point, that there is indeed a "change" in behavior in the sense that certain behaviors can never again take place, and will not. When you brought up the example of someone adopting the "new" behavior before the stages of enlightenment, I needed to clarify, so I did. Either way it's a permanent change in conventional behavior. If, as in your hypothetical example, the person just happened to stop murdering people before becoming a sotapanna, then the change is that they can never do it again, but it doesn't change the point. If that behavior hadn't changed beforehand, then it would change at the time of enlightenment. So have we covered all the bases on that point? > =============== J: I'm confused! I thought you had strongly disagreed with a suggestion I made in a summary to RobK that you were claiming a change in behaviour, but you now seem to be asserting just that! As I've said before, I would not agree with the characterisation of "a permanent change in conventional behaviour" to explain the eradication of a certain level of kilesa. > =============== > RE: The point is that the correspondence is there and takes place. In fact, a collection of abstentions that pertain to the sotapanna would in fact provide a kind of evidence that the person was in an advanced state, but it wouldn't be conclusive. On the other hand, the presence of a defilement or an akusala kamma patha would *disprove* the status of the person as a sotapanna, and this again shows the correspondence, whether it is offered as evidence or not. It exists. > =============== J: Your focus here is on whether there is behavioural evidence by which one could tell that another person is enlightened. I don't see the relevance of this to anything we discuss here (i.e., an understanding of the development of the path). It seems somewhat speculative. In the suttas it says that one would have to live with a person for a very long time to know whether or not they had good sila. > =============== > > J: I hope I have clarified the basis for my disagreement with your assumption. > > RE: I guess - but I am still waiting for a direct refutation of my thesis, rather than various other factors that don't contradict what I am saying. > > =============== J: Well I have difficulty in grasping exactly what the thesis is :-)) I thought I had it pegged in the summary I did for RobK to comment on, but apparently not so :-)) I will have another go at doing that that now (see next comment). > =============== > RE: The simple point is that certain conventional behaviors will absolutely not take place once a person is a sotapanna, and that is a fact. The meaning of that association is what is at issue, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. > =============== J: As I now understand it, your thesis is this: - the sotapanna is incapable of certain conventional behaviour - the observation of the absence of that conventional behaviour in another person indicates the possibility of that person being a sotapanna. If that's not it, perhaps you could say (concisely and succinctly, and in full) what the thesis is, and I would then be happy to comment. However, if your thesis has to do with how one can tell whether another person is enlightened, then I would say it's a thesis about an issue that is of no real or immediate value to us. Jon #123523 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:24 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (123439) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, > ... > A: I am all for careful study of the words and making sure that they are not misinterpreted. But, as I have previously provided on many occasions, the Buddha kept talking about effort in a very forceful way. For some reason the Buddha didn't talk in the manner that I see some talk today. He could have said that "don't intentionally strive, that develops Self view" etc etc. But again and again, He chose to say something much more different. > =============== J: As I mentioned in another post, neither did the Buddha say to "intentionally strive". It's a matter of context (within the particular sutta and within the Tipitaka as a whole). I am simply giving the explanation that is found in the commentarial tradition. I believe that, on a proper reading of the sutta text, the commentarial explanation is consistent with the words of the Buddha. If you'd like to discuss this further, please feel free to quote a particular sutta text and also the passage from my post (or from the commentaries) that you regard as being a misinterpretation. Jon #123524 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123469) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Of course I would agree that right understanding is always kusala (even when the object of the understanding is an akusala dhamma). But I'm wondering why you would think it necessary to make the point. Are you perhaps reading me as saying/suggesting otherwise (if so, you are misreading me :-))? > > RE: I don't recall thinking that you had this view, which was expressed by some others, so I don't know why I made the point to you at this time, but that's what I was driving at. > =============== J: Thanks for this indication. I'm relieved to hear that it wasn't because of anything I'd said :-)) Jon #123525 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:37 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi RobE (123470) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > RE: I found a quote from Rob K. on the sotapanna: > > > "What they can never do is go back to having wrong view, nor can they ever drink alcohol or lie or steal or kill even an ant. They can never take any other teacher than the Buddha, and they value the triple gem above all things. They give freely as they have eliminated stinginess." > > > > > > So we have a list of conventional actions that the sotapanna can or cannot engage in. Again, there is an obvious connection between the elimination of the defilements on the level of dhammas and the expression of this in conventional actions and abstentions. There is no example that contradicts this association, is there? > > > =============== > > > > J: I believe what RobK is referring to here is certain forms of akusala kamma patha, which he expresses in conventional language. > > RE: What basis do you have for believing that? I mean, I guess we can ask him, but he recently said as much in another thread. He says explicitly: > > nor can they ever drink alcohol > or lie or steal > or kill even an ant > > If someone speaks very specifically in conventional terms of activities that cannot be done, and you choose to interpret this as the expression of akusala kamma patha in "conventional terms" then I guess no example can ever come up to contradict you, since you will just translate it back again. That makes it impossible to debate this point, as no evidence is accepted, even when it is explicit. > =============== J: You will recall that I addressed a post to RobK inviting him to comment on our discussion not so long ago, but his reply didn't really clarify his position on the main issue. So I think it's your turn to ask him. I think it'd be good to have some fresh input into this thread :-)) Jon #123526 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi RobE (123470) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: Okay, so then there is a correlation between what cannot be expressed. Fine. That is a restriction on conventional behavior that comes from defilements being eradicated on the dhamma level. so then we are agreed that this correlation exists? > =============== J: I certainly would not call stream-entry a *restriction* on conventional behaviour :-)). That would make the arahant a prisoner! > =============== > > J: Yes, I appreciate that that's your point. But you haven't yet explained what you see as being the significance of this (perceived) connection, for example, how it bears on the development of the path. > > RE: It means that what we do or don't do in conventional existence has significance for the path, particularly in the case of the fulfillment of kamma patha, which requires that the cetana is strong to the point of causing completion of action. > =============== J: Thanks for giving sharing what you see as the significance of the correlation you've been making. I'm puzzled by the proposition that "what we do or don't do in conventional existence has significance for the path". I'd have thought that what you've been pointing to so far in this thread was the converse: that the extent to which the path has been developed by a person has significance for the person's conventional behaviour. Otherwise, it's the tail wagging the dog, surely :-)) > =============== > RE: It also means that we can see, to some extent, the signs of dhammas in the conventional behavior of those on the path. Not killing insects doesn't have to be a sign of a certain level of progress on the path, but it may be. In the case of someone like Sarah, who said spontaneously "I would never kill an insect" it may be a natural accompaniment to understanding. > =============== J: You say that not committing akusala kamma patha doesn't have to be a sign of a certain level of progress on the path, but it may be. Well if there's uncertainty, about the matter, it can't be of any significance. But the more fundamental question is as to the relevance of knowing/being able to tell whether another person has attained a certain level on the path. I don't see this to be something worth speculating about. Jon In my summary to RobK I said that you asserted the following: - at each stage of enlightenment, certain conventional behaviour is no longer possible (for example, in the case of the sotapanna, killing or stealing); - this means that for the person who becomes sotapanna there is a change in behaviour, as compared to immediately before becoming enlightened; - accordingly, a person's stage of development of the path is reflected in, and in fact is evidenced by, his/her behaviour. I still think that's a reasonable précis of what you've been saying :-)) #123527 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Alex (123475) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > > >J: Yes, the Path is all about the development of insight (panna). > >But the Buddha did not himself classify his teachings by reference >to whether or not meditation was involved. I'd be interested to >know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings >are about meditation and which are not. > >=================================================== > > A: [1] "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html > This is just beginning. > =============== J: Thanks for this quote from the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta. I of course understand why you would say that what is being referred to here is `meditation', since it involves the seated position commonly associated with meditation. But what about the rest of the Sutta? I'd be interested to know which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta you consider to be specifically about meditation, and which parts not. Jon #123528 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:34 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE (Alex), Thanks for your long reply, it helps to understand where you're coming from. I hope it's ok to focus on the fundamentals first, and then we can discuss more general implications that you've outlined. Anyway, let's look closer at the first question, I rearrange below your answer to the corresponding question to aid the flow: > > a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? > RE: The object of sati will always be a specific dhamma, and my guess is that the object of sati will be a rupa of the breath, such as movement, hardness/pressure or something along those lines. > > I understand that in the development of samatha, that the breath as concept can be the object, but that is a more complicated topic that I don't think we have to look at first. pt: I think that's roughly close to what the texts say. A small comment - I think that sati has the same object as the citta that it accompanies, so it can be a dhamma or a concept, not just a dhamma. Perhaps this is a good spot to review the types of kusala cittas, so we know what we're discussing. I think abhidhamma says there are three basic types of kusala citta that interest us atm: 1. kusala citta with 2 roots (adosa and alobha, no panna), with all other cetasikas also being kusala - sati, intention, concentration, perception, etc. With this sort of citta, concept is the object. If I understand things right, it can be generally said that kusala is accumulated at this instance, but there's no development of kusala at this point because there's no panna. An example often given for occurrence of this sort of citta is an act of kindness due to habit/inclination. 2. kusala citta with 3 roots (adosa, alobha and panna), all other cetasikas also being kusala, concept as object. So, there's actual development of kusala happening here, since there is panna. This sort of citta I think is said to occur either as a moment of samatha bhavana or as a moment of pariyatti. 3. kusala citta with 3 roots, all other cetasikas again also being kusala, but a dhamma as object this time. So, again, there's actual development of kusala happening here, since there is panna, but this sort of citta is said to occur as a moment of vipassana bhavana, and thus also classify as (mundane) "path-moment". It can also be a supramundane "path-moment" when the object is a very specific dhamma - nibbana. Anyway, is all this above clear so far? An observations that seem interesting relating to the above - only in moments when there's panna can there be said to be "bhavana", which is translated as development (and I think relates closely to development of kusala), and sometimes translated as meditation. Anyway, to return to the original example, when one is truly "mindful of breathing", the following could be objects of consciousness (citta) and associated cetasikas (sati, concetration, etc): 1. a dhamma (such as a rupa for example), making it vipassana bhavana. 2. a concept, which I think would have to do with conceptualising breathing, such as a concept about the tip of the nose, touch of breath on the upper lip, "I'm breathing", belly going up, etc (I think many, many are possible and they keep changing very quickly all the time unless there's jhana and then one and the same concept becomes the object of many successive cittas). This would be samatha bhavana or akusala citta and thus no-bhavana. Agreed so far? Best wishes pt #123529 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:40 pm Subject: Classes of cetasikas ptaus1 Hi all, As I was replying to RobE's post on different types of kusala cittas, I got a question: If we say that a citta of samatha bhavana class is different to a citta of vipassana bhavana class, and we also say that panna cetasika of samatha class differs from panna of vipassana class, can we then say the same thing about other cetasikas like sati, effort, concetration, etc? I mean, is for example concentration of samatha class different to concentration of vipassana class? And the same question for sati? Effort? Further, we've said before that development of akusala concentration (as well as akusala perception and other akusala cetasikas) does not help/condition development of kusala concetration (and kusala counterparts of other akusala cetasikas), the two essentially being the same in name "concentration" only. How about the difference between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana - does concentration cetasika that arises during samatha bhavana help/condition development of concentration of vipassana bhavana class in any way, or not really? And the same question for sati, effort, perception and other cetasikas? Best wishes pt #123530 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 12:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: I would also be interested in how you would see the extensive details on mindfulness of breathing given by the Buddha to *not* be about meditation. In any case, that is exactly how I would define meditation - by defining it the way the Buddha did. > > > =============== > J: I perhaps did not make myself clear, so let me start again. > > You made the comment that the purpose of Buddhist meditation is the development of kusala in general, including mindfulness and panna in particular. > > And from previous discussions I know that you see the development of the path as involving both meditation-type practice and daily-life development. > > Now as we know, `meditation' is not a term that was used by the Buddha himself. So I'd be interested to know how you decide whether, in a given instance, the Buddha is talking about meditation-type practice or daily-life development. > > For example, which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta would you see as involving meditation practice, and which parts as not (or not necessarily) involving that? Well, that is an interesting question, especially if one divides the practice in that way. I don't think that including "formal" meditation in the practice necessarily divides it that neatly. It is the omission of meditation from the practice that divides the Buddha's various instructions, or descriptions if you prefer, into two distinct parts. From my point of view, the practice is described in both the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas in the setting of sitting meditation. It starts out with sitting down in a quiet place, having the intention to be mindful of the breath, and then beginning to pay attention to the breath from moment to moment. As the practice progresses, other elements develop or are focused upon in addition to the breathing. I also have read in other scriptures or commentaries that the monks who practiced in this way were expected to keep the meditation object in mind even while going to town and begging for food, or engaging in work or other activities. So I think there is some cross-application of some of the practice to various settings in both formal and everyday surroundings. In some cases it seems clear that the primary practice is done in the sitting situation, such as the development of successive stages of samatha and jhana in the anapanasati sutta. Most of the anapanasati sutta is specifically set within sitting meditation structure, and only the ending part that talks in general about the further development of the enlightenment factors is not specifically tied to sitting meditation. In the satipatthana sutta, there are obviously multiple settings, and some of the instructions clearly apply to everyday life, such as the awareness of body positions while doing various activities. The corpse observations are done in the presence of a corpse, and some are done imagining oneself as a corpse; and the cemetary meditations are done in a cemetary. So the satipatthana sutta is more of a collection of practices that are done in several different settings or setups as opposed to the anapanasati sutta, which seems to be more of a seamless sitting exercise. When the satipatthana sutta goes through the actual development of the 4 foundations that seems to me to be an extension of anapanasati and initially set up for sitting meditation, but I have no doubt that the Buddha meant for both awareness of breathing and satipatthana to be carried over into everyday awareness. My own feeling is that monks or others would regularly practice anapanasati and the development of satipatthana in sitting meditation fo both the development of insight and jhana, and that they would then take this awareness to the extent possible into everyday life. The goal would be awareness of arising dhammas with mindfulness and correct understanding 24/7 without a break. And the practice leading to this would be developing the awareness of breathing and mindfulness of arising dhammas from moment to moment. > > =============== > > > J: I'd be interested to know the basis on which you determine which parts of the teachings are about meditation and which are not. > > > > RE: Pretty simple. When the Buddha says "By practicing mindfulness of breathing one can develop x, y or z" I take that as a meditation instruction. In other words, when the Buddha describes various practices and their results, I take those descriptions of practice as descriptions of practice. > > =============== > > J: Yes, but you talk about both "practice" and "meditation practice". How do the 2 differ, and what would be an example from the suttas of "practice" that is not "meditation practice"? I do not strictly separate them, as I think that the sitting meditation practice is obviously meant to carry over into everyday life, while there are some exercises that are meant to be done in specific settings outside of the monastery or sitting meditation, such as awareness of walking, eating, body positions, corpses etc. Those activities are also meditations but are done in the settings for which they are intended. Most of the practice that is described in anapanasati and satipatthana suttas I believe are meant to be practiced in sitting meditation, and then carried over into everyday life. No one doubts that everyday life is included in the practice. The point of contention is whether formal meditation is included in the practice, and whether it is the bedrock of the pracice, as I believe it is. Once accepted, meditation is included as the initial and important setting for practice, but it is not then strictly separated into meditation and non-meditation. Meditation is carried over until one is capable of satipatthana at every moment, whether sitting or not. But, like the Buddha's own practice until the day he died, meditation is not dropped. It continues to be the activity in which anapanasati and satipatthana can be experienced most directly. The Buddha sat cross-legged and went skillfully through all the major jhanas backwards and forwards before exiting form from the fourth jhana. This demonstration shows the centrality of the meditative states for the entire culture of Buddhism at the time of the Buddha and beyond. It was the way in which the arahats lived, breathed, practiced and died - the culture of enlightenment itself. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123531 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Classes of cetasikas nilovg Dear pt and Rob E, Op 31-mrt-2012, om 12:40 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > As I was replying to RobE's post on different types of kusala > cittas, I got a question: > > If we say that a citta of samatha bhavana class is different to a > citta of vipassana bhavana class, and we also say that panna > cetasika of samatha class differs from panna of vipassana class, > can we then say the same thing about other cetasikas like sati, > effort, concetration, etc? I mean, is for example concentration of > samatha class different to concentration of vipassana class? And > the same question for sati? Effort? ------ N: Citta and the accompanying cetasikas are closely connected and condition one another. They experience the same object but each in its own way. CItta knows the object clearly and the accompanying cetasikas assist the citta while performing each their own function. Thus, concentration accompanying the kusala citta with pa~n~naa that develops vipassanaa is different from the concentration that accompanies the kusala citta with pa~n~naa that develops samatha. Both types of cittas and accompanying cetasikas have different aims, different ways of practice. ------- > pt: Further, we've said before that development of akusala > concentration (as well as akusala perception and other akusala > cetasikas) does not help/condition development of kusala > concetration (and kusala counterparts of other akusala cetasikas), > the two essentially being the same in name "concentration" only. > How about the difference between samatha bhavana and vipassana > bhavana - does concentration cetasika that arises during samatha > bhavana help/condition development of concentration of vipassana > bhavana class in any way, or not really? And the same question for > sati, effort, perception and other cetasikas? ------ N: It is difficult to answer this question. People have different accumulations and if they are inclined to develop calm they do so anyway. It is their nature. Some people in the Buddha's time developed samatha first and then vipassanaa, or vice versa, or both at the same time, or only vipassanaa. I do not think they would tell themselves: I must develop samatha first so that it helps vipassanaa. It is not a question of telling oneself what to do first, people are inclined already to proceed in this way or that way. One can also be inclined to moments of calm in daily life without aiming for jhaana. There are so many akusala cittas and when one sees the danger of akusala there may be an inclination to moments of calm in considering the excellent qualities of the Buddha, or contemplating death that may occur any time. There are meditation subjects for everybody in any circumstances as explained in the co. to the satipa.t.thaanasutta: the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem, death, foulness of the body. Who can tell where the citta goes? Moments of calm and moments of mindfulness of naama and ruupa can alternate. There is no rule since whatever arises is conditioned already. We can have more understanding of anattaa, no self who controls. I came accross a passage in Survey this morning, and here the difference between samatha and vipassanaa is clearly explained: I find it helpful to consider the difference and to remember that samatha and vipassanaa have different objects and objectives. When we see the value of understanding realities as they are, we will be inclined to begin being mindful of whatever reality appears now. ----- Nina. #123532 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 1:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123436) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: You would say that the sotapanna cannot have the kamma patha of murderous intent arise. Would you not also say that he cannot murder anyone? Either it is possible or it is not. If you are willing to assert that the sotapanna can have no kamma patha for murder arise, but that he could be seen to murder someone, then I will admit that there is no relation between dhammas and conventional actions. Otherwise, the relation is more than obvious. > > =============== > > J: As Dhamma propositions, the 2 statements you make here are of quite a different order. > > The first, that "the sotapanna can have no kamma patha for murder arise", is good Dhamma (taking `murder' to refer to certain akusala kamma patha), since it is confirmed by the sutta text I quoted recently. > > The second, that "the sotapanna cannot be seen to murder someone", doesn't seem to have any real Dhamma content. Having the appearance of doing or not doing something is not the same as actually doing or not doing the something. As you have said, it is something that is seen to follow as a matter of logic. But it doesn't lead anywhere. What are the underlying dhammas involved? I think I clarified that I was just saying "seem" to point to the apparent nature of actions and beings, but I'm happy to strike it. I would actually much rather say that they cannot murder someone. That is fine with me. I didn't mean it in the sense that if they kill someone sneakily but seem not to, then they're fine. :-) > > =============== > > RE: Within the conventional world, all people will agree that the sotapanna never murders anyone, and that is all I am asserting. The "illusory" conventional murder cannot appear to take place when the kamma-patha for murder no longer arises. Would you not agree with that? > > =============== > > J: I have no problem with the assertion that the sotapanna has eradicated the kilesa that would support the killing of another being. > > But to assert anything about a sotapanna's general behaviour, such that s/he "never murders anyone", or that "conventional murder cannot appear to take place", seems to be another line of thinking altogether. I think "cannot murder someone" is actual. They would not be capable of having the dhammas arise that would cause a murder. I think that's just a fact, once the kilesas that would be involved in such an act are eradicated. That is like saying that you can't walk without legs, or see without eyes, or fly without wings. I don't see a problem with that. We say that a certain person is incapable of doing x or y all the time, based on the understanding that such a person would not have x or y arise. But in the case of the arahat, as I understand or misunderstand it, it is even more severe. The arahat can absolutely NOT murder anyone, or even desire to murder anyone, because that aspect of their personality has been eradicated. It's no longer in their nature, any more than a rabbit could suddenly turn into a carnivorous killer of other animals. It's just not going to happen. > > =============== > > RE: Just clarifying what is important in the point, that there is indeed a "change" in behavior in the sense that certain behaviors can never again take place, and will not. ... If that behavior hadn't changed beforehand, then it would change at the time of enlightenment. So have we covered all the bases on that point? > > =============== > > J: I'm confused! I thought you had strongly disagreed with a suggestion I made in a summary to RobK that you were claiming a change in behaviour, but you now seem to be asserting just that! > > As I've said before, I would not agree with the characterisation of "a permanent change in conventional behaviour" to explain the eradication of a certain level of kilesa. I agree that is not the *explanation* of the eradication of kilesas - it is an *effect* of the eradication of those kilesas. Does that help? :-) When hatred no longer arises, for instance, it would be hard to feel "murderous." If murderous feelings no longer arise, then it would be hard to imagine a murderous intention. If there is no murderous intention, then it would be hard to see how murder would take place. In fact it would not, because the factors that would lead to murder no longer arise. So the eradication of the kilesas leads to a definite correspondence in an area of conventional behavior. It may be a change from former behavior or not, but it is a change in whether there is any chance of that behavior arising. I think it is obvious what I am describing. Whether you call it a change or something else is more of a comparison. The point is that the factors that are eradicated make it impossible for the arahat to do certain conventional actions, and he will not. > > =============== > > RE: The point is that the correspondence is there and takes place. In fact, a collection of abstentions that pertain to the sotapanna would in fact provide a kind of evidence that the person was in an advanced state, but it wouldn't be conclusive. On the other hand, the presence of a defilement or an akusala kamma patha would *disprove* the status of the person as a sotapanna, and this again shows the correspondence, whether it is offered as evidence or not. It exists. > > =============== > > J: Your focus here is on whether there is behavioural evidence by which one could tell that another person is enlightened. I don't see the relevance of this to anything we discuss here (i.e., an understanding of the development of the path). It seems somewhat speculative. In the suttas it says that one would have to live with a person for a very long time to know whether or not they had good sila. Again, my point is that the correspondence would be there, not how difficult it would be to observe it. Observing it is indeed a side-point. > > =============== > > > J: I hope I have clarified the basis for my disagreement with your assumption. > > > > RE: I guess - but I am still waiting for a direct refutation of my thesis, rather than various other factors that don't contradict what I am saying. > > > > =============== > > J: Well I have difficulty in grasping exactly what the thesis is :-)) I thought I had it pegged in the summary I did for RobK to comment on, but apparently not so :-)) I will have another go at doing that that now (see next comment). > > > =============== > > RE: The simple point is that certain conventional behaviors will absolutely not take place once a person is a sotapanna, and that is a fact. The meaning of that association is what is at issue, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. > > =============== > > J: As I now understand it, your thesis is this: > - the sotapanna is incapable of certain conventional behaviour > - the observation of the absence of that conventional behaviour in another person indicates the possibility of that person being a sotapanna. > > If that's not it, perhaps you could say (concisely and succinctly, and in full) what the thesis is, and I would then be happy to comment. > > However, if your thesis has to do with how one can tell whether another person is enlightened, then I would say it's a thesis about an issue that is of no real or immediate value to us. That was only mentioned in one sentence, and is a side-issue. What I've been saying over and over again is: 1. A sotapanna is incapable of certain conventional behaviors. 2. The reason for this is that the corresponding kilesas have been eradicated that would cause those behaviors. 3. This shows the correspondence between the kilesas and those conventional behaviors. 4. This shows that there is a relationship between arising dhammas that are present or absent and conventional behaviors or activities. This could be extrapolated in a positive way too. If an arahat is always truthful in speech, one can look at the dhammas that are involved in causing speech to be truthful, [and the lack of dhammas that would lead to untruthful speech.] There is a correspondence between the presence of certain dhammas and certain kinds of conventional behavior. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123533 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Classes of cetasikas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/31/2012 10:10:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: It is difficult to answer this question. People have different accumulations and if they are inclined to develop calm they do so anyway. It is their nature. Some people in the Buddha's time developed samatha first and then vipassanaa, or vice versa, or both at the same time, or only vipassanaa. I do not think they would tell themselves: I must develop samatha first so that it helps vipassanaa. It is not a question of telling oneself what to do first, people are inclined already to proceed in this way or that way. ================================ But the Buddha taught differently in AN 4.94, it seems to me. I quote from it at the end. With metta, Howard _______________________________ "The individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment and ask him: 'How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. "As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. "As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. "As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations. ______________________________ #123534 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 2:35 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, >J: As I mentioned in another post, neither did the Buddha say to >"intentionally strive". >============== He has said it in sutta after suttas. What He has never said was to "don't do anything". Quotes I have provided many times. >It's a matter of context (within the particular sutta and within the >Tipitaka as a whole). >====================== And the whole context is to go *against* the flow (of craving, samsara, defilements) rather than with it. With metta, Alex #123535 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 2:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello Jon, >A:[1] "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the >wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits >down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting >mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always >mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html >This is just beginning. > =============== > >J: Thanks for this quote from the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta. I of >course understand why you would say that what is being referred to >here is `meditation', since it involves the seated position commonly >associated with meditation. But what about the rest of the Sutta? >I'd be interested to know which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta you >consider to be specifically about meditation, and which parts not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Satipatthana sutta clearly says that "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" is one of the things to be done. It also recommends "wilderness, shade of a tree, or to an empty building" as the place where this is done. So again, not every place is equally suitable (VsM goes in detail about this) and this is part of Satipatthana. With metta, Alex #123536 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 2:50 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi Ken H, I have to apologize : my order of Emails is not deserving 'samma' you wrote: KH: Ah ha! Perhaps you subconsciously wanted Thanissaro to be right. :-) Do you secretly hope there will be an eternal self (unbound consciousness) at the end of the path? ------------------------------------ D: not really ..though I assume that would be easier.. ;-) > D: But I intended to draw your attention less to the commentary than to the sutta text of the raft simile , starting with : "I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to" (N.) > Isn't the simile anything else than demonstrating a strategy , a concept to build a raft in order to cross over with efforts of hand and feet for the further shore? ----------------------------------- KH: In the suttas, a concept is often given as a simile for a reality. But in this case you think a concept (raft) has been given as a simile for another concept (strategy). I don't believe the suttas do that. I think the farther shore is a simile for nibbana, which is the cessation of dukkha and the cessation of the cause of dukkha (lobha, clinging). ---------------------- > D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? ---------------------- KH: Yes, but are you implying more than that? Are you implying the Dhamma is a mere strategy, and is not absolute truth and reality? -------------------------------- D: the ultimate truth is nibbana, the´other shore .. no Dhamma needed anymore . You refer to the absolute truth of our reality , i.e. Paramattha Dhamma. / > D: I like to recommend you to read both translations of MN 22 by the Venerables , it is an interesting sutta ,to contemplate before going to the commentaries . Perhaps you may comment with texts your point of heresy. ------------------------------- KH: Always listen to the ancient commentaries. Never think you don't need their help. As one sutta explains, the Dhamma is like sword grass: it cuts deeply when wrongly grasped. -------------------------------------------- D: always read the sutta first and contemplate.. when in doubt about its content, consult the commentaries. > D: B.T.W. my view of the Anatta Doctrine : that there is nothing that can be considered self, or as mine (5 Khanda attachment) -------------------------------------------- KH: I think the anatta doctrine says all dhammas are inherently anatta. If it wasn't for the fact that all dhammas were inherently anatta, the world would be a very different place. In that very different world it would be possible to have lobha (this is mine) without ignorance. Similarly it would be possible to have mana (this I am) and atta-ditthi (this is my self) without ignorance. Let's not confuse the doctrine of anatta with those other considerations. D: I miss to see the difference... --------------------- KH: If we do, we will be playing into Thanissaro's hands. D: it seems to me you got upadana-thanissaro > D: is understood by reason, but it has to be penetrated by heart (insight) . Hence Anatta needs to be realized , a development .The last fetter -as we know- Mana/conceit to be abolished just before Arahantship. ---------------------- KH: Sorry, I can't see the point you are trying to make. ---------------------------------------- D: below Arahantship anatta is still not realized .. the theory only shows what the practise proves. > D: The assumption of a transzendental Self ( a strategy as if the raft would carry something of an atta/I to the further shore ) would be indeed a a heresy according to my understanding . But that has to shown by respective writings. ----------------------------------------- KH: I assume there is a typo in that last sentence. What did you mean to say? ------------------ D: I meant you have to show by his quotations the heresy you claim <. . .> >> KH: Where else would anyone start? absolute unreality? :-) >> > D: perhaps with the introduction of reality , i.e. the Maha Satipatthana Sutta? Contemplation of khandas .. by the book ------------------ KH: I look forward to whatever you have in mind. D: I have in mind to start with the contemplation of the mind (and mind objects ) and refer to the corresponding cetasikas assumed there is common interest... with Metta Dieter #123537 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:55 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Rob K - if you are handy! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > RE: I found a quote from Rob K. on the sotapanna: > > > > "What they can never do is go back to having wrong view, nor can they ever drink alcohol or lie or steal or kill even an ant. They can never take any other teacher than the Buddha, and they value the triple gem above all things. They give freely as they have eliminated stinginess." > > > > > > > > So we have a list of conventional actions that the sotapanna can or cannot engage in. Again, there is an obvious connection between the elimination of the defilements on the level of dhammas and the expression of this in conventional actions and abstentions. There is no example that contradicts this association, is there? > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: I believe what RobK is referring to here is certain forms of akusala kamma patha, which he expresses in conventional language. > > > > RE: What basis do you have for believing that? I mean, I guess we can ask him, but he recently said as much in another thread. He says explicitly: > > > > nor can they ever drink alcohol > > or lie or steal > > or kill even an ant > > > > If someone speaks very specifically in conventional terms of activities that cannot be done, and you choose to interpret this as the expression of akusala kamma patha in "conventional terms" then I guess no example can ever come up to contradict you, since you will just translate it back again. That makes it impossible to debate this point, as no evidence is accepted, even when it is explicit. > > =============== > > J: You will recall that I addressed a post to RobK inviting him to comment on our discussion not so long ago, but his reply didn't really clarify his position on the main issue. So I think it's your turn to ask him. I think it'd be good to have some fresh input into this thread :-)) I agree, and I am happy to ask as well. I hope that his name on the post above may grab his attention if he is around. I don't have his personal email address. Best, Rob E. #123538 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 12:08 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: Okay, so then there is a correlation between what cannot be expressed. Fine. That is a restriction on conventional behavior that comes from defilements being eradicated on the dhamma level. so then we are agreed that this correlation exists? > > =============== > > J: I certainly would not call stream-entry a *restriction* on conventional behaviour :-)). That would make the arahant a prisoner! Well, it would not be so bad, would it, to be a "prisoner of goodness?" But in any case I mean restriction in the sense of something that is cordoned off or kept from happening. If entry of garbage into your front yard was "restricted" that would not make you a prisoner but just keep the garbage out. Since the arahat cannot engage in any akusala, it's not a bad restriction in that sense. > > =============== > > > J: Yes, I appreciate that that's your point. But you haven't yet explained what you see as being the significance of this (perceived) connection, for example, how it bears on the development of the path. > > > > RE: It means that what we do or don't do in conventional existence has significance for the path, particularly in the case of the fulfillment of kamma patha, which requires that the cetana is strong to the point of causing completion of action. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for giving sharing what you see as the significance of the correlation you've been making. > > I'm puzzled by the proposition that "what we do or don't do in conventional existence has significance for the path". > > I'd have thought that what you've been pointing to so far in this thread was the converse: that the extent to which the path has been developed by a person has significance for the person's conventional behaviour. That's certainly true, but if there is a relationship between dhammas and their expression in conventional behavior, then the conventional behavior can show the results of the dhammas involved. > Otherwise, it's the tail wagging the dog, surely :-)) Well, it's more like: where a wagging tail is seen, there is most likely a dog attached to it, even if the dog is not directly discerned at the time. The tail is not as important as the dog, but it gives an indication of what the dog is up to. That's more or less what I mean in terms of conventional behavior in that sense. Of course, in everyday life it is also significant if someone is not going to murder anyone, lie, cheat or steal. In conventional life that is a positive result of the eradication of the kilesas, even though it may not be the most important thing for the path. > > =============== > > RE: It also means that we can see, to some extent, the signs of dhammas in the conventional behavior of those on the path. Not killing insects doesn't have to be a sign of a certain level of progress on the path, but it may be. In the case of someone like Sarah, who said spontaneously "I would never kill an insect" it may be a natural accompaniment to understanding. > > =============== > > J: You say that not committing akusala kamma patha doesn't have to be a sign of a certain level of progress on the path, but it may be. Well if there's uncertainty, about the matter, it can't be of any significance. I think there is a difference between whether something is certain or not, and whether it is significant or not, but the uncertainty does make it more difficult to assess the significance, that is sure. > But the more fundamental question is as to the relevance of knowing/being able to tell whether another person has attained a certain level on the path. I don't see this to be something worth speculating about. It's not important in that sense. What is important about it is only whether there is some signficance to the existence or lack thereof of conventional behavior that is correlated to dhammas. > In my summary to RobK I said that you asserted the following: > - at each stage of enlightenment, certain conventional behaviour is no longer possible (for example, in the case of the sotapanna, killing or stealing); > - this means that for the person who becomes sotapanna there is a change in behaviour, as compared to immediately before becoming enlightened; > - accordingly, a person's stage of development of the path is reflected in, and in fact is evidenced by, his/her behaviour. > > I still think that's a reasonable précis of what you've been saying :-)) Well I've qualified both the second and third one, so I'm not sure if that's really accurate as it stands. I agree with the first one, in any case. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #123539 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] calm and insight. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 31-mrt-2012, om 17:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > " Some people in the Buddha's time > developed samatha first and then vipassanaa, or vice versa, or both > at the same time, or only vipassanaa. I do not think they would tell > themselves: I must develop samatha first so that it helps vipassanaa. > It is not a question of telling oneself what to do first, people are > inclined already to proceed in this way or that way." > ================================ > But the Buddha taught differently in AN 4.94, it seems to me. I quote > from it at the end. > ---------- > N: I was actually thinking of A II, 156, coupled, yuganaddha, where > this is explained. In other contexts there is emphasis on other > aspects. > Now, we can look at the sutta you quote. This is in a series of three suttas. Insight and tranquillity are praised. I have the commentary in Thai at hand. " insight into phenomena through heightened discernment" can also be translated as higher wisdom of insight, adhipa~n~naa-dhamma- vipassanaa. In the first sutta, adhipa~n~naa is stressed. Co: he should know the five khandhas as they are. N: adhipa~n~naa, this is always together with higher siila and higher citta, that is, higher concentration. ------ second sutta: here effort or energy is emphasized. > heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, > he should > approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of > awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How > should it be made to > settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be > concentrated?' The > other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The > mind > should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle > down in this > way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be > concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will > become one who has > attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into > phenomena > through heightened discernment. > > ------- N: Co: he should establish concentration by means of the first jhaana, citta should have only one object. The co adds: the wise should see the meaning of vipassanaa and samatha as being lokiya, mundane and lokuttara, supramundane, as the Buddha explained in all the suttas, also in these three suttas. The sutta text states further on, as you quote: <"As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of > > awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, > his duty is > to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful > qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) > fermentations. > > ------- N: My remarks: The sakadaagami has eradicated all attachment to sense objects, and thus, he has a high degree of calm. But this is not enough, he should further develop insight to reach arahatship. The eradication of all asavas is the highest degree of calm. The calm accompanying fruition consciousness that experiences nibbaana after the defilements have been eradicated is the highest calm , it is lokuttara. ----------- Nina. #123540 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 7:38 pm Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ----------- <. . .> >> KH: <. . .>Do you secretly hope there will be an eternal self (unbound consciousness) at the end of the path? >> > D: not really ..though I assume that would be easier.. ;-) ----------- KH: That might be an interesting topic for future discussion: Are the two extremes easier to explain than the Middle Way? I think you have given a correct answer: they are easier to *assume* but they are impossibly difficult to explain. -------------------- <. . .> > D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? ---------------------- KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. So why do Thanissaro followers make such a big deal of raft abandonment? In my opinion, they make a big deal of it in order to imply that the Dhamma is not ultimately true. They want us to believe the Dhamma is just a strategy. -------------------------- >> KH <. . .> are you implying more than that? Are you implying the Dhamma is a mere strategy, and is not absolute truth and reality? >> > D: the ultimate truth is nibbana, the´other shore .. no Dhamma needed anymore .You refer to the absolute truth of our reality , i.e. Paramattha Dhamma. -------------------------- KH: Paramattha dhammas are absolute realties. They comprise citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana, all of which are absolutely real. The Eightfold Path is a citta accompanied by cetasikas (notably samma-ditthi, samma-sankappa . . . samma-samadhi). Therefore the Eightfold path is absolutely real. ------------------- <. . .> >>> D: <. . .> an interesting sutta ,to contemplate before going to the commentaries >> >> KH: Always listen to the ancient commentaries. Never think you don't need their help. <. . .> >> > D: always read the sutta first and contemplate.. when in doubt about its content, consult the commentaries. ------------------- KH: We could go like this forever. :-) If you think a sutta is straightforward, and doesn't need expert explanation, you don't even know what a sutta is. Your turn. :-) ----------------------------- > D: B.T.W. my view of the Anatta Doctrine : that there is nothing that can be considered self, or as mine (5 Khanda attachment) -------------------------------------------- . KH: I think the anatta doctrine says all dhammas are inherently anatta. If it wasn't for the fact that all dhammas were inherently anatta, the world would be a very different place. In that very different world it would be possible to have lobha (this is mine) without ignorance. Similarly it would be possible to have mana (this I am) and atta-ditthi (this is my self) without ignorance. Let's not confuse the doctrine of anatta with those other considerations. D: I miss to see the difference... --------------------- KH: I don't know how I can make it any clearer. All dhammas bear the anatta characteristic (anatta-lakkhana): that is the anatta doctrine. Thanissaro tells us the anatta doctrine is: conditioned dhammas do not deserve to be called "mine" "me" of "my self." He does not say they are *not* those things (in fact he says they *are* those things) he just says they don't *deserve to be called* those things. He says only after they have become "unbound" (unconditioned) will they deserve to be called mine, me and my self. -------------- <. . .> > D: it seems to me you got upadana-thanissaro -------------- KH: Yes, I am cursed with it. In essence, Thanissaro is telling people the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. I am simply telling them he is wrong. ---------------------- <. . .> > D: below Arahantship anatta is still not realized .. the theory only shows what the practise proves. ---------------------- KH: Anatta is fully realised during mundane satipatthana, before the first stage of Path Consciousness (Sotapanna-hood). ------------ <. . .> > D: you have to show by his quotations the heresy you claim ------------- KH: I have posted several messages (with quotes) about Thanissaro's heterodoxy. So have others. What more do you need? Please ask. ------------------ <. . .> > D: I have in mind to start with the contemplation of the mind (and mind objects ) and refer to the corresponding cetasikas ------------------ KH: Yes, that will be good. What is the purpose of your threads? Is it to help us catch and identify cetasikas as they arise? Or is it to help us understand that cetasikas cannot be caught and identified? Ken H #123541 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 8:51 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >R: Okay, so I guess the idea is that if someone shows you something horrible and you have a painful reaction, that is the citta reacting to it through formations/feelings rather than any painfulness in the object itself; whereas if someone stabs you with a spear, the bodysense actually experiences a tangible pain. Is that on the right track? .... S: Either way, the moment of seeing, hearing or body consciousness is just one very brief moment of vipaka. It's true that in the case of body consciousness, that as discussed, the accompanying feeling is unpleasant (or pleasant). Most of what we refer to as the "painful reaction" in all cases are the many, many subsequent cittas and processes of cittas rooted in dosa, accompanied by domanassa (unpleasant feeling). The dosa arises only with the javana cittas in the sense door and subsequent mind door processes. ... > > S: Body-consciousness just experiences the tangible object. The accompanying feeling is painful or pleasurable. If there is awareness arising, this accompanies subsequent javana cittas, ... > >R: So body-consciousness experiences tangible object, and it may be felt [by vedana?] to be painful or pleasurable, while arising citta may then become aware of what is taking place? .... S: The vedana experiences exactly the same object as the citta (consciousness) it accompanies. So if the body-consciousness experiences heat, for example, the accompanying vedana experiences the same heat with pleasant or unpleasant feeling. If the following javana cittas in that sense-door process (and immediately following mind door process) are kusala, then sati will be aware of that rupa of heat. It may be helpful sometime for us to review the sense door and mind door processes of cittas, but let's see how this goes first. Metta Sarah p.s I will be coming back on the second half of the other post when I have time. ========== #123542 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 10:53 pm Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi Ken H, you wrote: ------------------ <. . .> > D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? ---------------------- KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. D: if I would say it is blue you are likely to say no, it is dark blue KH: where So why do Thanissaro followers make such a big deal of raft abandonment? In my opinion, they make a big deal of it in order to imply that the Dhamma is not ultimately true. They want us to believe the Dhamma is just a strategy. -------------------------- >> KH <. . .> are you implying more than that? Are you implying the Dhamma is a mere strategy, and is not absolute truth and reality? >> > D: the ultimate truth is nibbana, the´other shore .. no Dhamma needed anymore .You refer to the absolute truth of our reality , i.e. Paramattha Dhamma. -------------------------- KH: Paramattha dhammas are absolute realties. They comprise citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana, all of which are absolutely real. The Eightfold Path is a citta accompanied by cetasikas (notably samma-ditthi, samma-sankappa . . . samma-samadhi). Therefore the Eightfold path is absolutely real. D: nibbana is lokuttara , citta , cetasika and rupa lokiya ------------------- <. . .> >>> D: <. . .> an interesting sutta ,to contemplate before going to the commentaries >> >> KH: Always listen to the ancient commentaries. Never think you don't need their help. <. . .>> > D: always read the sutta first and contemplate.. when in doubt about its content, consult the commentaries. ------------------- KH: We could go like this forever. :-) ----------------------------- > D: B.T.W. my view of the Anatta Doctrine : that there is nothing that can be considered self, or as mine (5 Khanda attachment) -------------------------------------------- . KH: I think the anatta doctrine says all dhammas are inherently anatta. If it wasn't for the fact that all dhammas were inherently anatta, the world would be a very different place. In that very different world it would be possible to have lobha (this is mine) without ignorance. Similarly it would be possible to have mana (this I am) and atta-ditthi (this is my self) without ignorance. Let's not confuse the doctrine of anatta with those other considerations. D: I miss to see the difference... --------------------- KH: I don't know how I can make it any clearer. All dhammas bear the anatta characteristic (anatta-lakkhana): that is the anatta doctrine. Thanissaro tells us the anatta doctrine is: conditioned dhammas do not deserve to be called "mine" "me" of "my self." He does not say they are *not* those things (in fact he says they *are* those things) he just says they don't *deserve to be called* those things. He says only after they have become "unbound" (unconditioned) will they deserve to be called mine, me and my self. -------------- D: see <. . .> > D: it seems to me you got upadana-thanissaro -------------- KH: Yes, I am cursed with it. In essence, Thanissaro is telling people the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. I am simply telling them he is wrong. ---------------------- D: he certainly is not claiming an eternal soul <. . .> > D: below Arahantship anatta is still not realized .. the theory only shows what the practise proves. ---------------------- KH: Anatta is fully realised during mundane satipatthana, before the first stage of Path Consciousness (Sotapanna-hood). D: wrong: only the belief is abolished .. what do you think is mana? ------------ <. . .> > D: you have to show by his quotations the heresy you claim ------------- KH: I have posted several messages (with quotes) about Thanissaro's heterodoxy. So have others. What more do you need? Please ask. ------------------ D: I miss the evidence .. why should I ask for what you have to prove? <. . .> > D: I have in mind to start with the contemplation of the mind (and mind objects ) and refer to the corresponding cetasikas ------------------ KH: Yes, that will be good. What is the purpose of your threads? Is it to help us catch and identify cetasikas as they arise? Or is it to help us understand that cetasikas cannot be caught and identified? D: I explained several times the purpose of the cetasika in daily life -project .. my intention should be clear by now ,so I wonder about your question with Metta Dieter #123543 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 27-mrt-2012, om 20:07 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > D: It is said: > " That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly > Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following > it, I > came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the > origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of > aging & > death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of > aging & > death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct > knowledge of > birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling..etc. " > > i.e. the Buddha realized the Law of Dependent Orgination while > following > that path.. > How do you conclude " here it is explained what that ancient path > is: the > cetasikas that are the eight path-factors" ? > (even if we assume that each path factor is presented by a special > cetasika > of the 52, by what is it explained here?) > ----------- N: Following this path... etc. Path is used first in a figurative way. It leads to understanding the four noble Truths and the D.O. Then it is said: And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by > the > Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble > eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right > > action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. ...> Here there is a more precise, non-figurative explanation: the eight factors that are specific cetasikas. These develop together by means of insight. Right view: it begins by knowing the dhammas that appear as naama and ruupa, no person. Right view is assisted by right thinking and the other factors. There is nothing against it to use path in a figurative way and then in a more precise non-figurative way. The latter way indicates very precisely how to reach the goal the ancient path is leading to. > ------- > > D: some people even don't see anicca until they die . > ------ N: If one still clings to a self who cannot stay alive, one does not know the truth of aniccaa. Aniccaa pertains to conditioned realities. ------ > > But I like to come back to supermundane and supramundane once more. > Supramundane we agreed is lokuttara (the 8 aspects of the Noble > Ones and > Nibbana) a) . > All others Lokiya , mundane . However we may distinguish our > conventional > reality and that what is its base or above , i.e . the khandas . > The latter may therefore be called supermundane reality. > -------- N: I am afraid the use of supermundane for the khandhas may be confusing. ------- > D: In this sense the first Noble Truth concerns conventional truth and > supermundane truth ( suffering in brief = 5 khanda attachment) > The conventional truth is that what happens in our day by day > life , the > experience of the person (which -until delusion is penetrated > /abolished -is a reality, > like a mirage in the desert) > ----- N: I would say, the khandhas occur in our day to day life, but people may not realize that what they take for a person are five khandhas arising and falling away. Seeing is khandha, like and dislike, just khandhas, why call them supermundane? They are just life. ------- > D: I am thinking whether it wouldn't be quite interesting to see > the mind > states mentioned in the Maha Satipatthana in relation to the 52 > Cetasikas , > which would be a new? approach instead of going through that what > you have > already written about in detail. > > D: my inclination is to go through the D.N. text and see its > correspondence > with our list of cetasikas. > What do you (and Sarah ) think? > --------- N: It would be best to install only a short part at a time, so that one can take the time to contemplate it. Again, it depends on your inclination. Nina. #123544 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 9:37 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ----- <. . .> > D: if I would say it is blue you are likely to say no, it is dark blue ----- KH: That is unavoidable. You and I have fundamentally different understandings of the Dhamma, and therefore we will disagree to some extent on every point. Just to reiterate: I see the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen realities. You (I think) see the Dhamma as a set of instructions to be followed. ---------- <. . .> >> KH: In essence, Thanissaro is telling people the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. <. . .> > D: he certainly is not claiming an eternal soul ---------- KH: You are not the first person to have told me that. There is a very scholarly bhikkhu who occasionally posts on DSG and who has been very forthright in his condemnation of Thanissaro's heterodoxy. That same bhikkhu once corrected me when I said Thanissaro taught eternal-life belief. I'd like to know what else it could be called. Thanissaro has stated perfectly clearly that (in his opinion) there is a self. So what does he want us to believe happens to that self? Does it survive for all eternity, or is it annihilated? I would have thought the former: it lives happily ever after in Nibbana - "free to go where it pleases" to use Thanissaro's words. So what is the correct answer? ------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: Anatta is fully realised during mundane satipatthana, before the first stage of Path Consciousness >> > D: wrong: only the belief is abolished .. what do you think is mana? -------------------------- KH: It is an unwholesome cetasika that is accumulated to some degree in all non-arahants. I think we both agree it has no connection with atta-belief or any other belief. But are you saying it is due to a kind of "atta recognition" that falls short of "atta belief?" ------------ >> KH: I have posted several messages (with quotes) about Thanissaro's heterodoxy. So have others. What more do you need? Please ask. >> > D: I miss the evidence .. why should I ask for what you have to prove? ----------- KH: Because (as I have already said) the proof has been supplied. Not just by me but by people whose opinions are respected. Surely you have seen the discussions here? I think you have taken part in some of them. The gist of them can be found in the Useful Posts file under "Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take..." ------------------- <. . .> KH: Is it to help us catch and identify cetasikas as they arise? Or is it to help us understand that cetasikas cannot be caught and identified? >> > D: I explained several times the purpose of the cetasika in daily life –project .. my intention should be clear by now ,so I wonder about your question -------------------- KH: It comes back to our fundamentally different points of view. I don't mind participating in any kind of Dhamma discussion, but I would prefer to know from the start: are we talking about right understanding here and now, or are we talking about preparations for future right understanding? Ken H #123545 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 10:46 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE (Alex), > > Thanks for your long reply, it helps to understand where you're coming from. I hope it's ok to focus on the fundamentals first, and then we can discuss more general implications that you've outlined. > > Anyway, let's look closer at the first question, I rearrange below your answer to the corresponding question to aid the flow: > > > > a) what is (can be) the object of consciousness? > > > RE: The object of sati will always be a specific dhamma, and my guess is that the object of sati will be a rupa of the breath, such as movement, hardness/pressure or something along those lines. > > > > I understand that in the development of samatha, that the breath as concept can be the object, but that is a more complicated topic that I don't think we have to look at first. > > pt: I think that's roughly close to what the texts say. A small comment - I think that sati has the same object as the citta that it accompanies, so it can be a dhamma or a concept, not just a dhamma. That is my sense too, but some people definitely disagree with that. Since we agree we can accept that as a given for now. > Perhaps this is a good spot to review the types of kusala cittas, so we know what we're discussing. I think abhidhamma says there are three basic types of kusala citta that interest us atm: > > 1. kusala citta with 2 roots (adosa and alobha, no panna), with all other cetasikas also being kusala - sati, intention, concentration, perception, etc. With this sort of citta, concept is the object. If I understand things right, it can be generally said that kusala is accumulated at this instance, but there's no development of kusala at this point because there's no panna. An example often given for occurrence of this sort of citta is an act of kindness due to habit/inclination. Can you say a word about the difference between accumulation and development of kusala? I really don't get the idea that kusala is great but has no relation to the path without panna. If it doesn't develop the path, what's so kusala about it? I mean, does it have value other than being nice in a general way? Does it create any conditions for development of the path, or not? Buddha seemed to have all kinds of wonderful things to say about jhana, and in most cases included the development of the full range of jhanas and formless states as leading up to nibbana, but folks around here seem to always emphasize dry insight and dismiss jhana as if it was a nasty virus. This is worth looking into too, while on the subject of kusala with two roots. Buddha included jhana and development of insight in one breath in many instances, as developing together and growing the enlightenment factors through deep equanimity - a property of the deeper jhanas - combined with deep insight into the nature of the dhammas that arose in those states, which were subtler objects, but here they are separated like men's and women's basketball teams. This has implications for the whole idea of meditation either being part of the path or not, since for non-meditators, jhana will most likely only arise when sufficient insight for enlightenment stages has developed, whereas for meditators - at least those who have the capacity for it - it becomes a regular part of the development of the path. It seems that the commentaries also take a much more separative approach to jhana and development of insight than the suttas do, favoring the development of dry insight. The commentators also seem to be much more intellectual in their approach to the analysis of the Buddha's teachings than the suttas themselves in many cases, which in many cases are pragmatic and often practice-oriented, applying directly to the lives of monks and householders who were following the path at the very time the Buddha spoke. So the commentators appear to favor dry insight perhaps because of their own predilections, and one who looks at the suttas illuminated by the commentaries may also develop this same inclination in approaching the path. Again, I think the issues raised above are direct outshoots of the idea that kusala which in and of itself does not include panna does not contribute to path development, so I'd like to at least raise the issues that emanate from this and see whether you would like to talk about them now, or save them for later. > 2. kusala citta with 3 roots (adosa, alobha and panna), all other cetasikas also being kusala, concept as object. So, there's actual development of kusala happening here, since there is panna. This sort of citta I think is said to occur either as a moment of samatha bhavana or as a moment of pariyatti. I understand it as a moment of pariyatti - that makes a lot of sense. I would like to explore the way in which samatha bhavana does develop because of panna being present, but has concept as an object, either now or later. I think that is an important area which of course is also pertinent for meditation, since the path outlined by the Buddha in the anapanasati sutta and elsewhere includes both development of samatha and sati, sometimes seemingly in close order, through anapanasati practice. I sometimes understand the difference in samatha meditation and insight meditation, if I may momentarily separate them this way, to involve the development of peacefulness and concentration following the breath in a more general way, which of course involves concept, whereas insight is developed by attending the changing dhammas of the breath, and other dhammas that arise, from moment to moment with mindfulness. With concept one can simply note that the breath is indeed rising and falling and have a general sense of its passage with a certain degree of awareness, but without noticing all the details. Insight would be attendant upon the understanding of specific rupas that arise in attending the breath. But the above opens the possibility, it seems, that even in samatha meditation that more frequently has breath as a concept as its object, panna might still develop. > 3. kusala citta with 3 roots, all other cetasikas again also being kusala, but a dhamma as object this time. So, again, there's actual development of kusala happening here, since there is panna, but this sort of citta is said to occur as a moment of vipassana bhavana, and thus also classify as (mundane) "path-moment". It can also be a supramundane "path-moment" when the object is a very specific dhamma - nibbana. This makes sense. I would be interested in distinguishing the insight that may develop with samatha bhavana, unless I misunderstand and this does not lead to insight, and the development that takes place when such mundane path moments arise. > Anyway, is all this above clear so far? Not only clear but excellently laid out! My confusion about certain issues above are from my own ignorance, but what you say is very clear and I tentatively think I agree with all of it, pending your answers to some of these questions. > An observations that seem interesting relating to the above - only in moments when there's panna can there be said to be "bhavana", which is translated as development (and I think relates closely to development of kusala), and sometimes translated as meditation. I have no problem with the idea that true development [of insight] only takes place in moments when there is some degree of kusala, and that without panna or an equivalent "intelligent" cetasika arising as well, there would be an increase in understanding. But I have some questions and some exceptions. 1. Does panna necessarily arise in every moment when there is sati, vitakkha and other cetasikas that are aware or become more aware of some aspect of their object? If yes, then it makes sense that without panna there is no development of understanding. If no, then I would ask, doesn't understanding develop in certain ways when sati or vitakkha or vicara are present, even without panna? Or is panna always the only factor that actually understands? 2. To my mind, there is some development that will lay groundwork for insight later that in and of itself may not have panna present. I feel this way about samatha/jhana and I think the Buddha did too. This is something we may have to explore or debate later. If jhana develops to the point of equanimity and suppression of defilements, does this not create conditions for development of sati and panna? I think the answer is probably 'no,' and so we may have to come back to this. But in looking at this in terms of meditation, there are times when it seems like peacefulness and equanimity are more prominent, and sometimes when that will lead to a sense of understanding arising. It seems to me that the Buddha spoke about meditation in this way as well. 3. In meditation in general, I see the general habit and practices of meditation to eventually lead to the development of sati. I know this is not popular here, so I would call this an exception to the above, perhaps to be debated later. This view is based on the idea of meditation as a conventional practice that represents the development of certain dhammas, and this is always the controversy with those who believe that a conventional practice can never lead to anything pertinent to the path. It is hard to even talk about it, since the preexisting philosophical understanding is that dhammas can only arise from former arisings and developments, rather than from present practice. So there is a kind of chasm there. For me, to put it a little too bluntly, someone would have to demonstrate that this is the actual teaching, rather than something that is strictly gotten from scriptures other than the suttas, or from a modern interpretation of development. I don't really understand where the idea of all current experience and development coming from past accumulations, with nothing contributed by present activities and experiences, but that is something I would need to look into. > Anyway, to return to the original example, when one is truly "mindful of breathing", the following could be objects of consciousness (citta) and associated cetasikas (sati, concetration, etc): > > 1. a dhamma (such as a rupa for example), making it vipassana bhavana. > 2. a concept, which I think would have to do with conceptualising breathing, such as a concept about the tip of the nose, touch of breath on the upper lip, "I'm breathing", belly going up, etc (I think many, many are possible and they keep changing very quickly all the time unless there's jhana and then one and the same concept becomes the object of many successive cittas). This would be samatha bhavana or akusala citta and thus no-bhavana. > > Agreed so far? Well, you can see from the above that I have "a few questions," but I agree with the basics that you are laying out. The only qualifier I would throw in is that I think in actual practice moments of concept as object and rupa as object, as well as arising thoughts as object, etc., probably all take their place in the various moments that arise while meditating. So the question is whether those moments that arise when rupa is object or even when concept is object have any panna arising with them, and whether that panna accumulates when it arises. I think you probably will agree with that... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123546 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 2:26 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: The vedana experiences exactly the same object as the citta (consciousness) it accompanies. So if the body-consciousness experiences heat, for example, the accompanying vedana experiences the same heat with pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Is the sole purpose or function of vedana then to determine if the dhamma is pleasant or unpleasant? It seems like it reexperiences the object with its 'reaction' and that is all that is added to the experience. > If the following javana cittas in that sense-door process (and immediately following mind door process) are kusala, then sati will be aware of that rupa of heat. Just noting the relationship here between kusala and the arising of sati. Can the kusala cittas in this process arise with panna, or is that not necessary for sati to arise and be aware of the rupa? > It may be helpful sometime for us to review the sense door and mind door processes of cittas, but let's see how this goes first. That would be worthwhile any time, but whenever it seems best. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #123547 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat rjkjp1 Dear rob, On your question about the value of kusala without panna. It can be considered as an attendant of the parami, although not a parami, so it does have some good effect. Robert #123548 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat nilovg Dear Rob E, You have made a thorough study about the subject of meditation. There are so many points, and I take out one point re the commentaries. Op 2-apr-2012, om 2:46 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > It seems that the commentaries also take a much more separative > approach to jhana and development of insight than the suttas do, > favoring the development of dry insight. The commentators also seem > to be much more intellectual in their approach to the analysis of > the Buddha's teachings than the suttas themselves in many cases, > which in many cases are pragmatic and often practice-oriented, > applying directly to the lives of monks and householders who were > following the path at the very time the Buddha spoke. So the > commentators appear to favor dry insight perhaps because of their > own predilections, and one who looks at the suttas illuminated by > the commentaries may also develop this same inclination in > approaching the path. -------- N: It is helpful to read Ven. Henepola Gunaratna on the Jhaanas. He made a thorough study with quotes from suttas and commentaries. Also in the suttas there is reference to dry insight. On Google under Henepola and Jhanas you can obtain the text of his book. It is worth studying. He quotes the Susima sutta and commentary. He quotes the Putta Sutta (A II, 87) about the two types of arahats. All arahats are "liberated by mind and liberated by wisdom", but there are different types: The white lotus recluse (sama.na pundariika) "does no experience the eight deliverances with his body". The red lotus recluse (sama.na paduma) "dwells experiencing the eight deliverances with his body". People have different accumulations, and also arahats are not the same. In some contexts different attainments are explained, in some contexts calm is highly praised. This is not a contradiction. One sutta cannot be applied for all people. Did you see my asnwer to Howard? Here you can see that the commentary is not partial to dry insight. No predilections. Why should it be partial? It just conforms to the suttas. ------ Nina. #123549 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:06 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: The vedana experiences exactly the same object as the citta (consciousness) it accompanies. So if the body-consciousness experiences heat, for example, the accompanying vedana experiences the same heat with pleasant or unpleasant feeling. > >R: Is the sole purpose or function of vedana then to determine if the dhamma is pleasant or unpleasant? It seems like it reexperiences the object with its 'reaction' and that is all that is added to the experience. .... S: Vedana just "feels", just "tastes" the object in a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral manner, depending on the citta and other mental factors it accompanies (amongst other conditions). So vedana doesn't "determine" anything, it just experiences, just feels that object, while the citta it accompanies is the leader in experiencing, in knowing that object. I think there is so much misconception about vedana, that it's very to question and understand more about its nature like this. So ask anything else. .... > > >S: If the following javana cittas in that sense-door process (and immediately following mind door process) are kusala, then sati will be aware of that rupa of heat. > >R: Just noting the relationship here between kusala and the arising of sati. Can the kusala cittas in this process arise with panna, or is that not necessary for sati to arise and be aware of the rupa? ... Sati arises with all kusala cittas (as well as with some vipaka and kiriya cittas). This is why I said that if the subsequent cittas are kusala, then sati is definitely arising. Panna, however, doesn't always arise with kusala cittas, so there is often sati arising without panna. However, if there is awareness of a reality as a reality, for example, awareness of heat as heat at those moments, then panna must be arising as well. At other times when there are kusala cittas with concept as object, such as at moments of giving or kindness or sila, there may not be any panna arising. ... > > > It may be helpful sometime for us to review the sense door and mind door processes of cittas, but let's see how this goes first. > > That would be worthwhile any time, but whenever it seems best. .... S: Just starting with a sense door process, (as quoted before by Rob K): >From Realities and Concepts (sujin boriharnwanaket) * When a sense object, which is rupa, impinges on one of the sensedoors, it is experienced by several cittas arising in a sense- door process. Counting from the "past bhavanga", there are seventeen moments of citta if the sense-door process of cittas runs its full course. Rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, and thus it falls away when that process is over. The seventeen moments of citta are as follows: 1. atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga). 2. bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga). 3. bhavangupaccheda (arrest bhavanga), the last bhavanga arising before the object is experienced through the sense-door. 4. five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness (pancadvaravajjana-citta), which is a kiriyacitta. 5. sense-cognition (dvi-pancavinnana, seeing-consciousness, etc.), which is vipakacitta. 6. receiving-consciousness (sampaticchana-citta), which is vipakacitta. 7. investigating-consciousness (santirana-citta) which is vipakacitta. 8. determining-consciousness (votthapana-citta) which is kiriyacitta. 9-15. seven javana-cittas ("impulsion", kusala citta or akusala citta in the case of non-arahats). 16. registering-consciousness (tadarammana-citta) which may or may not arise, and which is vipaka citta. 17. registering-consciousness. After a sense object has been experienced through a sense-door it is experienced through the mind-door, and then that object has just fallen away** .... S: We've been discussing no 5) the sense-cognition, such as the moment of seeing or body consciousness and 9) -15) the seven javana-cittas in the process which are the kusala or akusala cittas. As I mentioned, the moment of seeing or body consciousness is just one vipaka citta, (followed by other vipaka cittas), whereas the javana cittas are where the "second arrow" may occur, when akusala cittas arise. After the sense-door processes, there are mind-door processes and many more opportunities for "second arrows". Hence we see that most the unpleasant feeling which arises, occurs as accompanying the javana cittas if dosa arises. Enough for now. Happy to discuss further, of course. Metta Sarah p.s we'll be travelling back to Aus on Wednesday and we have quite a few family members visiting us over Easter, so responses likely to be slow.... ====== #123550 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > D: my inclination is to go through the D.N. text and see its > > correspondence > > with our list of cetasikas. > > What do you (and Sarah ) think? > > > --------- > N: It would be best to install only a short part at a time, so that > one can take the time to contemplate it. Again, it depends on your > inclination. .... S: I think it would be good to continue on with the Cetasikas project as well - it doesn't matter how slowly. Just because there isn't a lot of response at times doesn't mean that people don't find it interesting/helpful/good to reflect on. If it's really controversial, you can be sure you'll get responses:-) With the DN text, like Nina, I think that just a short paragraph at a time with any comments with regard to the cetasikas, is best for thorough discussion. Again there's no hurry. Metta Sarah ===== #123551 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, R:> ....If you speak harshly, that is worse, but obviously to hit or to kill in ordinary terms is much worse. In Abhidhamma terms, I guess it would be explained in terms of resultant rupas? When cetana is strong enough to cause responsive rupas to arise that we interpret as killing or other akusala actions, then it is kamma patha. Does that make sense? And I guess experiencing those rupas could lead to other akusala reactions. .... S: Remember that perception is said to be like a mirage and consciousness like a conjuring trick. We think we live amongst people who give, show kindness, steal or kill, performing various acts all day, but really there's no one at all, no thing a all either. There are just cittas which arise and fall away and may be wholesome or unwholesome, depending on conditions. The (akusala) kamma conditions rupas such as speech or boidly actions, but is not the cause of the experiencing of unpleasant rupas by another being's cittas. As part of the mirage and conjuring trick, it seems that one person (or at least the cittas and cetanas and so on we take for being that person) directly impact and harm another person (or set of cittas, cetasikas and rupas that are taken for that person.) So it seems that person A (or cittas of person A) can directly harm, even kill person B, unless person A is a sotapanna. However, we learn from our Dhamma studies, that the cause of painful bodily experiences and even of death are not the acts of another person, but that these are vipaka cittas resulting from kamma. Now, there are bound to be other support conditions, but these other support conditions are realities as well, such as the accumulated tendencies of attachment and aversion. Again, they are not "person A" of even the dhammas taken for being person A. A sotapanna cannot kill because there is the firm understanding of namas and rupas as anatta, not self. In reality, there are no beings to be killed. There is an understanding of kamma - when there are conditions for death consciousness to arise, it will arise. Why does the death consciousness of one mosquito to arise, but not of any others at that instant? Kamma. So a sotapanna doesn't have any thought of harming or killing it because only kamma can condition the last moment of life, the vipaka citta. The mirage, the conjuring trick is that what we take for people and things, harming and killing insects and people is really only an idea at this moment. There is no mosquito, no people. There is just body consciousness, seeing, hearing, followed by lots thinking - usually unwisely. This is why it's said that life exists in a moment - Vism XX,72: "Life, person, pleasure, pain: just these alone Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. Gods, though they live for four-and-eighty thousand Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive Are all alike, gone never to return; And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, Have traits no different from those ceased before." The more understanding there is of cittas, cetasikas and rupas now, the less will we be enraptured by the mirage and conjuring trick, the illusion of atta. Metta Sarah ======= #123552 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 4/2/2012 4:56:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: However, we learn from our Dhamma studies, that the cause of painful bodily experiences and even of death are not the acts of another person, but that these are vipaka cittas resulting from kamma. Now, there are bound to be other support conditions, but these other support conditions are realities as well, such as the accumulated tendencies of attachment and aversion. Again, they are not "person A" of even the dhammas taken for being person A. =============================== Ahhh, so the namas and rupas that correspond to what we call your writing of this post are not conditions for those we call our reading of it!? Sarah, you actually believe that? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123553 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. nilovg Hi Howard Op 2-apr-2012, om 15:10 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ahhh, so the namas and rupas that correspond to what we call your > writing of this post are not conditions for those we call our > reading of it!? > Sarah, you actually believe that? ------ N: What you write here are conditions for me to consider more conditions. Interesting remarks you made. We never know what will happen at a given moment, it occurs all by conditions. Kusala citta with appreciation or maybe akusala cittas with irritation. Who could direct the arising of cittas? Seeing visible object is vipaaka, resulting from kamma. The reactions, kusala or akusala are conditioned by accumulations. Perhaps there was not any condition for seeing this visible object that could condition kusala cittas with appreciation. My computer may be out of order, or I had no time, who could tell? But then there may be the right time to see and read this mail with good reminders, like: One person may read this, another person may not. Conditions all! And it is all momentary, so short. Not this or that lasting person. We may think of namas and rupas that correspond to this person or that event, but they all have fallen away when we think of them. ----- Nina. #123554 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thanks for writing me. :-) In a message dated 4/2/2012 10:40:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: What you write here are conditions for me to consider more conditions. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, that is quite so. (Or so it seems to me :-) ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123555 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:54 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear rob, > On your question about the value of kusala without panna. > It can be considered as an attendant of the parami, although not a parami, so it does have some good effect. Okay, thank you, that is helpful to know. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123556 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 1:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: It is helpful to read Ven. Henepola Gunaratna on the Jhaanas. He > made a thorough study with quotes from suttas and commentaries. Also > in the suttas there is reference to dry insight. On Google under > Henepola and Jhanas you can obtain the text of his book. It is worth > studying. > He quotes the Susima sutta and commentary. He quotes the Putta Sutta > (A II, 87) about the two types of arahats. All arahats are "liberated > by mind and liberated by wisdom", but there are different types: The > white lotus recluse (sama.na pundariika) "does no experience the > eight deliverances with his body". The red lotus recluse (sama.na > paduma) "dwells experiencing the eight deliverances with his body". > People have different accumulations, and also arahats are not the same. > In some contexts different attainments are explained, in some > contexts calm is highly praised. This is not a contradiction. One > sutta cannot be applied for all people. Thank you, Nina, this is very good - I will look up the material you are talking about. > Did you see my asnwer to Howard? Here you can see that the commentary > is not partial to dry insight. No predilections. Why should it be > partial? It just conforms to the suttas. I will also look for your reply to Howard. I would like to see that quote. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123557 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 11:36 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Vedana just "feels", just "tastes" the object in a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral manner, depending on the citta and other mental factors it accompanies (amongst other conditions). > > So vedana doesn't "determine" anything, it just experiences, just feels that object... > > I think there is so much misconception about vedana, that it's very [good] to question and understand more about its nature like this. So ask anything else. It seems like vedana "feels" in the sense of having a very basic "emotional" reaction, even though I know it's not an emotion on the level of the more complex formations that are mental/proliferational in nature. But it is not just that something has an unpleasant sensation, if I am correct, but that there is an unpleasant "reaction" to the sensation. Is this correct? There has always been a lot of confusion about this because of the English "feel" meaning both the perception of a sensation and sometimes an emotion, eg, "I feel the texture of the wood," as opposed to "I feel sad today." I don't know if there's a similar confusion in the equivalent words in other languages. I have concluded that vedana is more emotional than simply sensation, that it is a basic reaction, so it would be good to clarify this. As I understand it, if the vedana is known as vedana at the moment of "feeling" then it ends and doesn't grow into a more complex reaction, but if there is proliferation in response to the vedana, then a full "formational" emotion complete with thoughts and more reactions ensues, creating new kamma. Is this correct? Also, is the initial vedana of the nature of vipaka, or does it too cause kamma? > > >S: If the following javana cittas in that sense-door process (and immediately following mind door process) are kusala, then sati will be aware of that rupa of heat. > > > >R: Just noting the relationship here between kusala and the arising of sati. Can the kusala cittas in this process arise with panna, or is that not necessary for sati to arise and be aware of the rupa? > ... > Sati arises with all kusala cittas (as well as with some vipaka and kiriya cittas). This is why I said that if the subsequent cittas are kusala, then sati is definitely arising. > > Panna, however, doesn't always arise with kusala cittas, so there is often sati arising without panna. However, if there is awareness of a reality as a reality, for example, awareness of heat as heat at those moments, then panna must be arising as well. > > At other times when there are kusala cittas with concept as object, such as at moments of giving or kindness or sila, there may not be any panna arising. Can you explain how the clear discernment of sati can be there without panna, and if so, what is the nature or status of that sati without panna? I always thought that sati would know "heat as heat" and that panna would have a greater understanding of the nature of the heat. But it seems that you are assigning that basic knowing of the dhamma's basic "isness" to panna. If so, then what does sati do, and how is that augmented when sati arises with panna? > > > It may be helpful sometime for us to review the sense door and mind door processes of cittas, but let's see how this goes first. > > > > That would be worthwhile any time, but whenever it seems best. > .... > S: Just starting with a sense door process, (as quoted before by Rob K): > > >From Realities and Concepts (sujin boriharnwanaket) > > * When a sense object, which is rupa, impinges on one of the > sensedoors, it is experienced by several cittas arising in a sense- > door process. Counting from the "past bhavanga", there are seventeen > moments of citta if the sense-door process of cittas runs its full > course. Rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, and thus > it falls away when that process is over. The seventeen moments of > citta are as follows: > > 1. atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga). > > 2. bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga). > > 3. bhavangupaccheda (arrest bhavanga), the last bhavanga > arising before the object is experienced through the sense-door. > > 4. five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness > (pancadvaravajjana-citta), which is a kiriyacitta. > > 5. sense-cognition (dvi-pancavinnana, seeing-consciousness, > etc.), which is vipakacitta. > > 6. receiving-consciousness (sampaticchana-citta), which is > vipakacitta. > > 7. investigating-consciousness (santirana-citta) which is > vipakacitta. > > 8. determining-consciousness (votthapana-citta) which is > kiriyacitta. > > 9-15. seven javana-cittas ("impulsion", kusala citta or > akusala citta in the case of non-arahats). > > 16. registering-consciousness (tadarammana-citta) which may > or may not arise, and which is vipaka citta. > > 17. registering-consciousness. After a sense object has > been experienced through a sense-door it is experienced through the > mind-door, and then that object has just fallen away** > .... > > S: We've been discussing no 5) the sense-cognition, such as the moment of seeing or body consciousness and 9) -15) the seven javana-cittas in the process which are the kusala or akusala cittas. As I mentioned, the moment of seeing or body consciousness is just one vipaka citta, (followed by other vipaka cittas), whereas the javana cittas are where the "second arrow" may occur, when akusala cittas arise. > > After the sense-door processes, there are mind-door processes and many more opportunities for "second arrows". Hence we see that most the unpleasant feeling which arises, occurs as accompanying the javana cittas if dosa arises. That is very interesting. I haven't yet seen that level of detail, slow beginner that I am, so that is good to look at and study a bit. So, if you have the chance, where in that grouping would the vedana arise? I understand that the initial proliferation if any would be in the javana cittas, but not sure if vedana is earlier or part of the javana group. Also, it seems like somewhere around 5 or 6 would be where "contact" would take place? Which of those moments constitute contact, and how many moments does it last? Thanks. > p.s we'll be travelling back to Aus on Wednesday and we have quite a few family members visiting us over Easter, so responses likely to be slow.... No rush, ha ha ha. :-) I'll be happy to hear your responses whenever it is convenient. Hope you have a nice Easter with family! I enjoy those kinds of events. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123558 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 11:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Remember that perception is said to be like a mirage and consciousness like a conjuring trick. We think we live amongst people who give, show kindness, steal or kill, performing various acts all day, but really there's no one at all, no thing a all either. There are just cittas > which arise and fall away and may be wholesome or unwholesome, depending on conditions. The (akusala) kamma conditions rupas such as speech or boidly actions, but is not the cause of the experiencing of unpleasant rupas by another being's cittas. > > As part of the mirage and conjuring trick, it seems that one person (or at least the cittas and cetanas and so on we take for being that person) directly impact and harm another person (or set of cittas, cetasikas and rupas that are taken for that person.) So it seems that person A (or cittas of person A) can directly harm, even kill person B, unless person A is a sotapanna. > > However, we learn from our Dhamma studies, that the cause of painful bodily experiences and even of death are not the acts of another person, but that these are vipaka cittas resulting from kamma. Now, there are bound to be other support conditions, but these other support conditions are realities as well, such as the accumulated tendencies of attachment and aversion. Again, they are not "person A" of even the dhammas taken for being person A. > > A sotapanna cannot kill because there is the firm understanding of namas and rupas as anatta, not self. In reality, there are no beings to be killed. ... > This is why it's said that life exists in a moment - ... > The more understanding there is of cittas, cetasikas and rupas now, the less will we be enraptured by the mirage and conjuring trick, the illusion of atta. Beautiful post - thanks for the clear explanation of what occurs in the bottom line of reality, and how no beings, or acts from one to the other, are the reality that is experienced. Very inspiring! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123559 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 3, 2012 12:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 4/2/2012 4:56:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > However, we learn from our Dhamma studies, that the cause of painful > bodily experiences and even of death are not the acts of another person, but > that these are vipaka cittas resulting from kamma. Now, there are bound to be > other support conditions, but these other support conditions are realities > as well, such as the accumulated tendencies of attachment and aversion. > Again, they are not "person A" of even the dhammas taken for being person A. > =============================== > Ahhh, so the namas and rupas that correspond to what we call your > writing of this post are not conditions for those we call our reading of it!? > Sarah, you actually believe that? I think it's possible to say that the dhammas that correspond to "writing of this post" _are_ conditions for "our reading of it" without asserting that there is a person A writing and a person B reading. To get at the details of what that means would require a longer analysis, but if we say in brief that the body writing is composed of namas and rupas, and the body reading is composed of namas and rupas, we can imagine a sequence of conditions that go from the writing to the reading without involving the concept of a person who writes or reads. It is possible that if we want to put the person back into that equation that we may be attached to the sense of having a self. [I know I am.] Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123560 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 6:03 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat eddielou_us Hi Ken, You are correct, I misplaced this reply and now it is put where it belongs. Thanks. Eddie Hi Ken & Sarah, I do not know how meditation figures in older or modern Buddha's teachings, I think meditation maybe is like a tool or utility to achieve the necessary concentration & purification (purification to see things "as is" and 'not be clouded or biased') to achieve certain level of nanna & panna to attain enlightenment, and ultimately to reach - Nibbanna. Sila, Samadhi & Panna! Also I still see Dhamma as a term or Buddhas' concept about "All" phenomena. Correct or not, I am still exploring and learning, maybe forever?! So far so good, with whatever validation I can find. I went quickly through Sarah's great comment(Message #122771) and that may answer many of our discussion topics. I really like her explanation, which seems to coincide with many of what I think, guess and size up. Anyone is invited to explain better than I can herein. Thanks in advance. Metta & Respect, Eddie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Eddie, > > ---- > <. . .> > > E: I understand some aspects of things simply can not be verified because we lack certain capabilities, insights & understanding. > Ken H > #123561 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 7:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert E and Howard, --------- > RE: I think it's possible to say that the dhammas that correspond to "writing of this post" _are_ conditions for "our reading of it" without asserting that there is a person A writing and a person B reading. ---------- KH: There is an obvious problem with your theory as it is stated above. Reading is a concept, and therefore not conditioned by paramattha dhammas. So can I assume you meant: "conditions for the dhammas that correspond to our reading of it"? I am not sure of the answer. I think any dhamma that arises now has been conditioned to some degree by *every* dhamma that *ever* preceded it. That sounds a bit farfetched, but doesn't modern science (e.g. Chaos Theory) say the same thing about concepts? The direction of the hurricane that blows a tree onto your house now has been determined to some extent by a single wing-flap of a butterfly at some time in the past on the other side of the planet. I don't know if that helps. :-) Ken H #123562 From: "azita" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 7:45 am Subject: Re: Political Activity by Monks gazita2002 Hallo Eddie, apologies for late reply. I dont spend much time at the computor, and it always amazes me to see how often some people post, its as if they live in front of their computors :) your story about the two monks is a bit beyond me, I dont understand the what the point of 'catching the lizard' is about. I dont think one can always be aware. To me, real awareness -satipatthana - is kusala citta accompanied by panna, and according to abhidhamma, there cannot be 'awareness' all the time. For example, at the moment of experiencing hardness thro the bodysense, which is a vipaka citta, result of past kamma, there cannot be awareness in that moment. may all beings be happy azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie L wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > Sathipattana, in general awareness includes breathing awareness. During meditation, breathing awareness or movement awareness will be good too. Actually, I think meditation can be done "all the time" during the waking hours. Maybe can we say "Constant" meditation. Breathing awareness is just one of many kinds. Some also do walking meditation. > > "Always" be aware as in Sathipattana. There is one story told by a leading monk during Vipassana meditation class, there was an experienced older monk who had all the necessary prerequisites ("theoretical" knowledge and wisdom) but kept putting off becoming an arahant. One day he decided to become one. So he asked around for assistance but most were reluctant because he was known for having a lot of capabilities and those prerequisites and also ego (mana??). > > > So he finally had to ask a small monk who by his parami (previous meritorius deeds accumulation) already achieved arahantship. But the small monk eventually agreed to show him his last leg to achieve arahantship. Just to test his real readiness with letting go of that hindrance - ego (mana), he asked to be carried on the monk's shoulders in order to cross a small stream without getting the small monk wet. He agreed and did the crossing as wished for. > > > So the small monk knew he is ready, he told the monk there was a lizard in a termite mound with 6 interlinked holes. He said how would one catch that "sneaky" lizard in such scenario? He said just close all the holes except leaving one hole open and wait at that open hole! > > At that the older monk instantly understood and soon achieved Arahantship! #123563 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 7:54 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "eddielou_us" wrote: > > Hi Ken, > You are correct, I misplaced this reply and now it is put where it belongs. Thanks. > Eddie > > Hi Ken & Sarah, > > I do not know how meditation figures in older or modern Buddha's teachings, I think meditation maybe is like a tool or utility to achieve the necessary concentration & purification (purification to see things "as is" and 'not be clouded or biased') to achieve certain level of nanna & panna to attain enlightenment, and ultimately to reach - Nibbanna. Sila, Samadhi & Panna! <. . .> ---------- Hi Eddie, The points you have raised are DSG's staple diet. Is the Dhamma about people becoming enlightened, or is it about enlightenment without people? It's hard to imagine how there could be enlightenment without people, but I am convinced that is the right answer. If it is the right answer there would be no need to "do" anything in order to reach enlightenment, would there? There would be no person to "do" it, and no person to "reach" it. So, which do you think is the right answer? Ken H #123564 From: "Prasad Praturi" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 1:20 am Subject: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Ms Nina Gorkam and others, I practice meditation taught by S N Goenka. I am also interested in abhidhamma and studying now. I saw you replying on dsg group on yahoo. Also I have read some of your books. I have a naive question you may be able to clarify. About the thoughts and Chitta-vithi ( series of 17 mind moments). Thoughts are usually plays in our minds in normal time as well as meditation times are largely about past experiences or future projections. How they are related to Chitta-vithi explained in abhidhamma commentariat literature? Thought is also seems to be an object to Chitta via mind door. Where the thoughts playing? Where is our memories of our past experiences ( in this life) stored in terms of abhidhamma? Where is sankaras or volitions are carried from Chitta to Chitta? I appreciate any clarification. Prasad Prasad praturi ppraturi@... #123565 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 1:38 pm Subject: Re: Political Activity by Monks eddielou_us Hi Azita, I hope I do not lead you astray, I am simply using my common sense and surrounding reality I can sense with my six senses! hehe! My view of awareness is just whatever whenever one is aware of with necessary focus using all the possible senses of six senses available to us. I am not that grounded in all the details and the concepts yet. I am still trying to. With regards to the lizard story, the lizard is the changing mind-states. Self-control of mental states is not easy - just like trying to catch and 'hold onto' a sneaky, slippery & slicky lizard. So in order to manage or tame one's own mind a little easier, one has to block out the other five of the total six senses. Maybe the only one left to roam is the sixth sense - the mind sense. Even then taming that mind sense is not the easiest of task. That is why meditation is still very important in taming and attaining enough wisdom to achieve some level closer to Arahatship and Nibbanna. Hope this helps to clear up my email. Metta, Eddie > > Hallo Eddie, > > apologies for late reply. I dont spend much time at the computor, > > I dont think one can always be aware. To me, real awareness -satipatthana - is kusala citta accompanied by panna, and according to abhidhamma, there cannot be 'awareness' all the time. For example, at the moment of experiencing hardness thro the bodysense, which is a vipaka citta, result of past kamma, there cannot be awareness in that moment. #123566 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Treatment szmicio Dear Sarah, I came back yesterday. I've just recovered a bit from this stay. This was like 8 days in prison. Even I had Dhamma books, I couldnt study Dhamma in such a place. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > > Best wishes for your treatments. Be courageous and remember right understanding and right awareness at the present moment. The Dhamma is always present to be studied and understood when there is wise attention. It doesn't depend on books or other people. Remember you always have good friends here who care a lot about your welfare. > > >________________________________ > > From: Lukas > > >Do u think this is always good to say a truth? > .... > S: Telling lies/untruths is never helpful - it just leads to more trouble and leads to people losing trust in what one has to say in future. It shows a lack of consideration for others. The person who tells lies can do all sorts of other harmful things as well. > > This doesn't mean one has to reveal all one's private affairs. Sometimes, silence is the best response or what can always say one prefers not to discuss a topic. > > Remember that the Bodhisatta broke all the other precepts in his previous lives as a bodhisatta, but never told a lie. > ... > > >I did in my lif a lot of bad things, and I know what I hear, see, feel is due to my past kamma. But it's still hard to really examine/realise this in life - in my present shape. > .... > S: We have all done a lot of bad things....and good things... in samsara. If there had been no good things, there wouldn't be life as a human now or the opportunity to study the Dhamma. Remember, that it's not Self - not you or me - who does good and bad things......just different dhammas arising and falling away. > > The best thing of all in life is to understand dhammas now. I know you appreciate this. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #123567 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Treatment nilovg Dear Lukas, I am glad to see you back here again. Now it is a good time to continue studying Dhamma. I am just retyping on computer a very old report on my third pilgrimage to India, and here Ven. Dhammadharo was also present. He had rather recently ordained. He was so impressed by the holy places. He repeated aloud the text: Iti pi so Bhagava. That the Blessed One is such since he is accomplished, fully enlightened... We have to think of all the aeons he accumulated as a Bodhisatta wisdom and all good qulaities, the perfections, so that he could become a sammaa-Sambuddha. He taught Dhamma out of compassion, also for us now. Nina. Op 4-apr-2012, om 9:48 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I came back yesterday. I've just recovered a bit from this stay. > This was like 8 days in prison. Even I had Dhamma books, I couldnt > study Dhamma in such a place. #123568 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 7:57 pm Subject: Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts nilovg Dear Prasad, Op 3-apr-2012, om 16:06 heeft Prasad Praturi het volgende geschreven: > I practice meditation taught by S N Goenka. I am also interested in > abhidhamma and studying now. > I have a naive question you may be able to clarify. About the > thoughts and Chitta-vithi ( series of 17 mind moments). Thoughts > are usually plays in our minds in normal time as well as meditation > times are largely about past experiences or future projections. How > they are related to Chitta-vithi explained in abhidhamma > commentariat literature? ------ N: At each moment a citta, mental moment, arises and falls away immediately. Cittas experience objects through the doorways of the eyes, and the other senses in processes of cittas. The cittas that experience a sense object such as visible object or sound arise in a sense-door process of cittas. The number 17 indicates that one ruupa (such as visible object) lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta. After the sense-door process is over the object is experienced through the mind-door, in a mind-door process of cittas. After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas that think on account of the sense object experienced before. These processes proceed so fast that it all seems to occur in one moment. For example, just now, it seems that we can see people and we think long stories about them. In reality only visible object or colour is seen, but when it seems that we see people, alreday mind-door process cittas have arisen that think of people. ------- > P: Thought is also seems to be an object to Chitta via mind door. > Where the thoughts playing? ------ N: It is important to know the difference between paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities and concepts. Seeing is an ultimate reality, and so is colour. They each have their own characteristic that cannot be changed. We can give them other names in different languages, but their characteristics are unalterable. Seeing is always seeing no matter we name it seeing or in Thai 'hen'. Paramattha dhammas can be experienced one at a time through the six doors. Concepts such as people or table are objects of thought but they are not real in the ultimate sense. We think of persons and believe that they exist, but this is an illusion. What we take for a person is only citta, cetasika and ruupa that do not last at all. But our thoughts are playing as you say. They play around all the time and we live as it were in a dream, taking for real what is not real, believing that people exist and stay. What is taught in the Abhidhamma is also taught in the suttas, but the Abhidhamma gives more details, such as details about the processes of citta. ------- > > P: Where is our memories of our past experiences ( in this life) > stored in terms of abhidhamma? ------ N: There is no place where anything can be stored. There is a mental factor, cetasika, that is remembrance or sa~n~naa accompanying every citta. It marks and remembers or recognizes the object citta experiences, no matter it is an ultimate reality or a concept. Sa~n~naa is the condition that we recognize this or that person, or remember events of the past. Not "I" but sa~n~naa remembers. -------- > > P:Where is sankaras or volitions are carried from Chitta to Chitta? ------- N: Sa"nkhaarakkhandha includes not only kusala and akusala volitions, but also all other good and bad qualities. When we are generous and give something useful away, this good quality falls away immediately with the citta, but it is never lost. Since each citta is succeeded by a following citta this good quality is carried on from moment to moment. Also all bad inclinations are carried on. They are a condition for the arising again later on of kusala citta and akusala citta. We can verify this in our life. Kusala kamma and akusala kamma can bring about result, vipaaka, later on, also because they are accumulated from moment to moment. When it is the right time kamma can produce its corresponding result. If anything is not clear, do not hesitate to ask again. Your points are very essential. Nina. #123569 From: Lukas Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 10:17 pm Subject: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations szmicio Dear friends, Sukin, Nina, Sarah, Jon and all, I am in a really tought moment in my life. I have very urgent question to Acharn Sujin. There are some meetings in Bankgok with Acharn during the week, as I know. Could anyone from DSG who is in Bangkog now, would like to go and ask some of my questions? I really need a support now. I am after 10 day detox, and dont want to spend two more hears in closed facility. Bad company there and bad vipaka. Also I dont want to die. That's my second day without drugs or alcohol, and it's really hard. I know this is disease and out of control. What would Acharn tell about that? Is it good to abstain from any intoxicants? Does bad friends, environment, somkeing cigarets a vipaka? Best wishes Lukas #123570 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 10:19 pm Subject: Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations szmicio Dear friends, Also one more question. If I live in bad environment in Poland, bad friends etc.. shall I run away to other more quiet place?? Or shall I accept thi is only a vipaka? Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Dear friends, Sukin, Nina, Sarah, Jon and all, > > I am in a really tought moment in my life. I have very urgent question to Acharn Sujin. There are some meetings in Bankgok with Acharn during the week, as I know. Could anyone from DSG who is in Bangkog now, would like to go and ask some of my questions? > > I really need a support now. I am after 10 day detox, and dont want to spend two more hears in closed facility. Bad company there and bad vipaka. Also I dont want to die. That's my second day without drugs or alcohol, and it's really hard. I know this is disease and out of control. What would Acharn tell about that? > > Is it good to abstain from any intoxicants? Does bad friends, environment, somkeing cigarets a vipaka? > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > > #123571 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 9:42 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Nina, Thanks for clarifications.. Suppose we stop all other 5 sense doors othe than mind... always thoughts appear at mind door. I am assuming chitta moment (nama) and ordinary thought moment (is like Rupa) are distinct. is this corect understanding? Thought moment raises on the base of hadayavatthu... To raise this thought moment some trigger should happen. what is it? Previous kamma? Most of our thoughts have relationship to previous memory experiences.... Is this memory experiences are stored in brain as rupa??? So this pervious experience function as a trigger?? Only when thought moment is 17 chitta moment length ( like rupa moment length of 17 to register) then this thought moment regsiters and subsequent chitta moment trains continue many million times... so one knows that there is a continuous thought is playing on mind? who is cause to who? Chitta moments creating thought moments? Or Thought moments are creating chitta moments? Are (1) Chitta train is creating the thoughts (by current volition) one thought moment after the other to create a consistant thought or (2) Thoughts independently occuring at base of hadayavattu as a result of previous kamma volitions? ( so vipaka chittas are raising) RegardsPrasad #123572 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, I'm very, very glad to hear from you again - I've been thinking about you and wondering how the treatment has been going. Jon and I have just arrived in Sydney, so very tired and lots to do - will try to write more tomorrow. Lukas, be brave, be wise - you don't want to go back to the closed facility, so you need to be very strong and abstain from the intoxicants and talk to good friends, like here. As Nina said, now is the time to study Dhamma, write on Dhamma and listen to Dhamma.....and mostly importantly, as for us all, to develop more understanding of the realities now. A.Sujin would advise you to study, consider and be aware of seeing now, thinking, attachment, aversion and so on now. She'd also talk about the great danger of accumulating a taste for intoxicants, not just in this life but for future lives. We know from so many examples in the texts and daily life how people lose everything through addictions - family, friends, livelihood, their minds.... find other things to think about, especially the Dhamma. Take some walks, find some other friends, talk to L, visit the uni, visit your doctor if need be. Yes, maybe consider moving if you can find some work somewhere else. I know you have a lot of skills. There's another sutta that Phra Dhammadharo liked to recount about someone who was said by the Buddha to have been capable of becoming an arahat, but then he took to drink. At a certain point, if he had stopped he would still have been capable of becoming an anagram......a sakadagami.... a sotapanna. He didn't stop and later he wasn't capable of developing insight at all. I forget all the details. Nina or Jon may remember the one I'm thinking of. Usually A.Sujin doesn't have any meetings during the week - she goes away. Keep asking your questions here and different friends will give their responses, but be patient. Metta Sarah p.s I think you were very brave to go for the 10 day detox. I'm sure it was really tough. >________________________________ > From: Lukas >I am in a really tought moment in my life. I have very urgent question to Acharn Sujin. There are some meetings in Bankgok with Acharn during the week, as I know. Could anyone from DSG who is in Bangkog now, would like to go and ask some of my questions? > >I really need a support now. I am after 10 day detox, and dont want to spend two more hears in closed facility. Bad company there and bad vipaka. Also I dont want to die. That's my second day without drugs or alcohol, and it's really hard. I know this is disease and out of control. What would Acharn tell about that? > >Is it good to abstain from any intoxicants? Does bad friends, environment, somkeing cigarets a vipaka? #123573 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 4, 2012 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 4-apr-2012, om 14:17 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I am in a really tought moment in my life. I have very urgent > question to Acharn Sujin. > > I really need a support now. I am after 10 day detox, and dont want > to spend two more hears in closed facility. Bad company there and > bad vipaka. Also I dont want to die. That's my second day without > drugs or alcohol, and it's really hard. I know this is disease and > out of control. What would Acharn tell about that? > ------ N: She would ask you: is there seeing now? She would want to bring you back to the present moment, to reality now, that is all there is. Thinking of disease, of your sorrow of the past, it is all past and gone. Better to understand this moment now, also when it is thinking. Thinking is thinking, it is conditioned, not you. It is amazing, but it is always like this: whenever we have problems, such as fear of losing dear ones through death or fear of death, she would say: you are not dying now. What is there now? All this thinking is only thinking, and let us find out more about reality now. Even if you would travel now to Bgk, you would not hear a different answer. Ask Sukin. ------- > > L: Is it good to abstain from any intoxicants? Does bad friends, > environment, somkeing cigarets a vipaka? > -------- N: Abstaining is good, if you can. Being in bad company, all this is conditioned by the past. So is being in the company of good Dhamma friends. It is not by accident, it all has conditions. Good deeds in the past condition you being with Dhamma friends. Sometimes you are in bad company, sometimes in good company. ------- L: If I live in bad environment in Poland, bad friends etc.. shall I run away to other more quiet place?? Or shall I accept thi is only a vipaka? ------- N: One cannot always run away. Most important is our reactions to situations. Are they kusala or akusala? Also that is conditioned. But if one sees the value of kusala there are conditions to seek good friends. As the Buddha said, elements will go to similar elements. In the sutta, those who were inclined to jhaana would look for people who are likewise, those interested in Abhidhamma would look for people who are likewise (On Elements, Kindred Sayings). More on Ven. Dhammadharo, since this helps you with kusala cittas: we were traveling in the bus in India and an elderly monk accompanied us. (He stayed in a temple in Savatthi, and he used to accompany us on many trips, but then later on we heard that he had passed away). He kept saying loudly and repeating with much emphasis all the time: the inner aayatanas and the outer aayatanas (in Thai: aayatana painai, aayatana painog). We were looking out of the window to all the nice sights, but these were only visible objects. Outer aayatana: the objects that are the sense objects and dhamma objects. The inner aayatana: the senses through which these objects are experienced and manaayatana: all cittas. Ven. Dhammadharo remarked that he found it quite wonderful to be reminded of all these realities on a bus trip like this. Where would one have such an occasion, he found. So good not to waste the opportunity to understand the inner and outer aayatanas, they are not in the book, they are here, now! ------- Nina. #123574 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 1:11 am Subject: Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations rjkjp1 I am out of thailand until next week so camt ask for you Lukas. But one thing she often says is "no rule". You probably dont feel like it right now but you have an immense reservoir of parami and wisdom of your own, as far as I can tell from ypur posts. This hard fime is like the prod that will let them blossom and grow eventually. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear friends, > Also one more question. > > If I live in bad environment in Poland, bad friends etc.. shall I run away to other more quiet place?? Or shall I accept thi is only a vipaka? > > Best wishes > Lukas > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > > > Dear friends, Sukin, Nina, Sarah, Jon and all, > > > > I am in a really tought moment in my life. I have very urgent question to Acharn Sujin. There are some meetings in Bankgok with Acharn during the week, as I know. Could anyone from DSG who is in Bangkog now, would like to go and ask some of my questions? > > > > I really need a support now. I am after 10 day detox, and dont want to spend two more hears in closed facility. Bad company there and bad vipaka. Also I dont want to die. That's my second day without drugs or alcohol, and it's really hard. I know this is disease and out of control. What would Acharn tell about that? > > > > Is it good to abstain from any intoxicants? Does bad friends, environment, somkeing cigarets a vipaka? > > > > Best wishes > > Lukas > > > > > > > > > #123575 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Nina (and Sarah), you wrote: D: It is said: > " That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly > Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following > it, I > came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the > origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of > aging & > death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of > aging & > death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct > knowledge of > birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling..etc. " > i.e. the Buddha realized the Law of Dependent Orgination while > following > that path.. > How do you conclude " here it is explained what that ancient path > is: the > cetasikas that are the eight path-factors" ? > (even if we assume that each path factor is presented by a special > cetasika > of the 52, by what is it explained here?) > ----------- N: Following this path... etc. Path is used first in a figurative way. It leads to understanding the four noble Truths and the D.O. Then it is said: And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by > the > Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble > eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right >> action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. ...> Here there is a more precise, non-figurative explanation: the eight factors that are specific cetasikas. These develop together by means of insight. Right view: it begins by knowing the dhammas that appear as naama and ruupa, no person. Right view is assisted by right thinking and the other factors. D: yes , I think that can be seen in this way .. N:There is nothing against it to use path in a figurative way and then in a more precise non-figurative way. The latter way indicates very precisely how to reach the goal the ancient path is leading to. D: and the former refers to the stream of events (D:> But I like to come back to supermundane and supramundane once more. > Supramundane we agreed is lokuttara (the 8 aspects of the Noble > Ones and > Nibbana) a) . > All others Lokiya , mundane . However we may distinguish our > conventional > reality and that what is its base or above , i.e . the khandas . > The latter may therefore be called supermundane reality. > -------- N: I am afraid the use of supermundane for the khandhas may be confusing. ------- D: only , for those who do not recognize the difference between super- und supra- mundane. The term super- mundane is distinguished from the mundane, which describes the conventional truth (person,´mother,father). Lokiya includes both ..the higher and the lower level of view of the (conditioned ) world . As a matter of understanding khandas /paramattha dhamma are superior (super) in view in respect to the social life of the person . > D: In this sense the first Noble Truth concerns conventional truth and > supermundane truth ( suffering in brief = 5 khanda attachment) > The conventional truth is that what happens in our day by day > life , the > experience of the person (which -until delusion is penetrated > /abolished -is a reality, > like a mirage in the desert) > ----- N: I would say, the khandhas occur in our day to day life, but people may not realize that what they take for a person are five khandhas arising and falling away. Seeing is khandha, like and dislike, just khandhas, why call them supermundane? They are just life. ------- D: seeing (why suffering is called in brief upadana-) is khanda , which is superior to those conventional aspects (of suffering ). Both are 'just ' life, lokiya ...only the unconditioned , the supra-mundane is beyond, lokuttara , isn't it? > D: my inclination is to go through the D.N. text and see its > correspondence > with our list of cetasikas. > What do you (and Sarah ) think? > --------- N: It would be best to install only a short part at a time, so that one can take the time to contemplate it. Again, it depends on your inclination. D: ok , I will try ..and - following Sarah's suggestion - the cetasika in daily life project to be continued as well. with Metta Dieter #123576 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 3:34 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi KenH, you wrote ( D: if I would say it is blue you are likely to say no, it is dark blue)----- KH: That is unavoidable. You and I have fundamentally different understandings of the Dhamma, and therefore we will disagree to some extent on every point. D: considered what has been said before: D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it?---------------------- KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. your No comes even when there is no disagreement , is it? Kh:Just to reiterate: I see the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen realities. You (I think) see the Dhamma as a set of instructions to be followed. D: if you see the description of the present arisen realities connected with the necessary contemplation of what is meant we may come closer . . .> >> KH: In essence, Thanissaro is telling people the Buddha believed in an eternal soul. <. . .> > D: he certainly is not claiming an eternal soul ---------- KH: You are not the first person to have told me that. There is a very scholarly bhikkhu who occasionally posts on DSG and who has been very forthright in his condemnation of Thanissaro's heterodoxy. That same bhikkhu once corrected me when I said Thanissaro taught eternal-life belief. I'd like to know what else it could be called. Thanissaro has stated perfectly clearly that (in his opinion) there is a self. So what does he want us to believe happens to that self? Does it survive for all eternity, or is it annihilated? D: again Ken, please quote (stated perfectly clearly that (in his opinion) there is a self ) KH:I would have thought the former: it lives happily ever after in Nibbana - "free to go where it pleases" to use Thanissaro's words. So what is the correct answer? D:the correct answer is in the text:' "And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." you recognize 'go wherever I like', do you ? Of course the I is a matter of speech only . Where we both seem indeed to differ is 'making an effort with my hands & feed' ------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: Anatta is fully realised during mundane satipatthana, before the first stage of Path Consciousness >> > D: wrong: only the belief is abolished .. what do you think is mana? -------------------------- KH: It is an unwholesome cetasika that is accumulated to some degree in all non-arahants. I think we both agree it has no connection with atta-belief or any other belief. But are you saying it is due to a kind of "atta recognition" that falls short of "atta belief?" D: conceit is the remaining rest of the self , the stench still to be abolished after the major cleaning of the impurities. What else could it be when there is still comparision better, even or lower than me.. (I have written about mana cetasika before) ------------ >> KH: I have posted several messages (with quotes) about Thanissaro's heterodoxy. So have others. What more do you need? Please ask.>> > D: I miss the evidence .. why should I ask for what you have to prove? ----------- KH: Because (as I have already said) the proof has been supplied. Not just by me but by people whose opinions are respected. Surely you have seen the discussions here? I think you have taken part in some of them. The gist of them can be found in the Useful Posts file under "Anatta3 -ATI, No-self?, Non-self?, Not-self? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's take..." D: again , it is your claim and not my duty to search in the UP files ----- <. . .> KH: Is it to help us catch and identify cetasikas as they arise? Or is it to help us understand that cetasikas cannot be caught and identified?>> > D: I explained several times the purpose of the cetasika in daily life -project .. my intention should be clear by now ,so I wonder about your question-------------------- KH: It comes back to our fundamentally different points of view. D: see above KH: I don't mind participating in any kind of Dhamma discussion, but I would prefer to know from the start: are we talking about right understanding here and now, or are we talking about preparations for future right understanding? D: Ken , I don't have an agenda you seem to assume . Just treating the cetasikas , define them in line with the Dhamma (which isn't so easy as it sounds due to translation/interpretation of Pali and its grouping) in order to identify the state of mind here -and -now. Totally up to you whether you like to comment or not .. with Metta Dieter #123577 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 4:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > --------- > > RE: I think it's possible to say that the dhammas that correspond to "writing of this post" _are_ conditions for "our reading of it" without asserting that there is a person A writing and a person B reading. > ---------- > > KH: There is an obvious problem with your theory as it is stated above. Reading is a concept, and therefore not conditioned by paramattha dhammas. > > So can I assume you meant: "conditions for the dhammas that correspond to our reading of it"? Yes, just as it says in the first part of the sentence re. "writing," so it is more shorthand for the same formulation in the second part of the sentence for "reading," but it makes sense to clarify. > I am not sure of the answer. I think any dhamma that arises now has been conditioned to some degree by *every* dhamma that *ever* preceded it. > > That sounds a bit farfetched, but doesn't modern science (e.g. Chaos Theory) say the same thing about concepts? The direction of the hurricane that blows a tree onto your house now has been determined to some extent by a single wing-flap of a butterfly at some time in the past on the other side of the planet. > > I don't know if that helps. :-) That may be true in a sense, but there are more "local" chains of conditionality that create their own sub-strings of "causality" and relate to other strings in a less direct way, I would think. If there are two chains of dominoes and they are each knocking down their own chain there are minor currents of wind and such between them, but they may never directly influence each other for a long time or forever. On the other hand if they intersect at a certain point then at that point we can trace the influence on the subsequent dominoes back to both chains, rather than just one. Maybe there's something similar with dhammas. Each of us has our own momentary experiences [meaning citta does,] and yet at certain points we seem to either share or create conditions for others' momentary experiences through various rupas, or something like that! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123578 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 5:14 am Subject: Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations szmicio Dear Rober (also Sarah and Nina) > You probably dont feel like it right now but you have an immense reservoir of parami and wisdom of your own, as far as I can tell from ypur posts. L: For sure I have a big reservoir of getting into troubles :P (No matter where I am). Also I know myself very good. And one of my biggest problems are using intoxicants, liking bad company and the third problem: Falling in love. I am very sensitive for falling in love, though I know this are always a big troubles to me. And it's like with alcohol, doesnt go in good way (just another addiction in my case). I am so scared to fall in love. The last of my love ended, that i've almost died. It was maybe one year ago. Best wishes Lukas #123579 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations nilovg Dear Lukas, there you go again, thinking of the future. Right now you may not drink, right now you may not be in love, at this very moment, I mean. Don't forget this moment now. As Kh Sujin often says: there is fire on our head, no time to lose. This may instill a sense of urgency. Nina. Op 4-apr-2012, om 21:14 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: For sure I have a big reservoir of getting into troubles :P (No > matter where I am). Also I know myself very good. And one of my > biggest problems are using intoxicants, liking bad company and the > third problem: Falling in love. I am very sensitive for falling in > love, though I know this are always a big troubles to me. And it's > like with alcohol, doesnt go in good way (just another addiction in > my case). I am so scared to fall in love. The last of my love > ended, that i've almost died. It was maybe one year ago. #123580 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 5:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations szmicio Dear Nina, What is moment of seeing? In the moment of seeing there is no falling in love isnt it? No problems at that moment. But afterwards comes 'falling in love' story. And this is very strong. very. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > there you go again, thinking of the future. Right now you may not > drink, right now you may not be in love, at this very moment, I mean. > Don't forget this moment now. As Kh Sujin often says: there is fire > on our head, no time to lose. This may instill a sense of urgency. > Nina. > Op 4-apr-2012, om 21:14 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > > L: For sure I have a big reservoir of getting into troubles :P (No > > matter where I am). Also I know myself very good. And one of my > > biggest problems are using intoxicants, liking bad company and the > > third problem: Falling in love. I am very sensitive for falling in > > love, though I know this are always a big troubles to me. And it's > > like with alcohol, doesnt go in good way (just another addiction in > > my case). I am so scared to fall in love. The last of my love > > ended, that i've almost died. It was maybe one year ago. > > > > > #123581 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 10:11 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------ <. . .> >>> D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? >>> >> KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. > D: your No comes even when there is no disagreement , is it? --------- KH: There is a clear disagreement. You say the Buddha's teaching is "all about" leaving the teaching behind. I disagree. I say there are other things that the teaching might be called "all about" but I can't see how that could be one of them. Why is the point about 'leaving the raft' so central to your understanding? ------------------- >> KH:Just to reiterate: I see the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen realities. You (I think) see the Dhamma as a set of instructions to be followed. >> > D: if you see the description of the present arisen realities connected with the necessary contemplation of what is meant we may come closer -------------------- KH: Good. I certainly do see it that way. I see every part of the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen dhammas. And so I see "the necessary contemplation" as just dhammas (most notably panna) arising by conditions to perform their functions of rightly understanding Dhamma theory. "Necessary contemplation" is just a moment of conditioned dhammas – just like now. ----------------------------------- <. . .> > D: again Ken, please quote (stated perfectly clearly that (in his opinion) there is a self ) ---------------------------------- KH: This has developed into a battle of wills. You keep saying "Show me the quotes," and I keep saying, "I have already shown you the quotes, why don't you read them?" Have you read the infamous "The Not-self Strategy by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"? Or "No-self or Not-self? by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"? (Just to name two of his many writings on anatta .) The latter essay begins with: "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all." KH: So Dieter, you tell me: does the idea of there being no self fit well with other Buddhist teachings? Or does it not fit well with them? If there is no eternal soul or self, can there be a purpose to a spiritual life (a life based on Dhamma study)? Does the Pali Canon try to answer (or address) those questions? In your opinion, is anatta a no-self teaching or a not-self teaching? Has TB made it perfectly clear to you that, in his opinion, there is a self? If not, what more would he need to say in order to give you that impression? --------------------------- <. . .> > D: you recognize 'go wherever I like', do you ? Of course the I is a matter of speech only . --------------------------- KH: Yes, it is part of the simile. After reaching the shore a sensible man abandons the raft that got him there. Similarly, after Parinibbana, there is no more knowledge of the way things are (or of anything). -------------------------------------- > D: Where we both seem indeed to differ is 'making an effort with my hands & feet' --------------------------------------- KH: Yes we do. In the Dhamma there are no hands or feet; the work of crossing over is done by conditioned dhammas. ------------------------- <. . .> > D: conceit is the remaining rest of the self , the stench still to be abolished after the major cleaning of the impurities. What else could it be when there is still comparision better, even or lower than me.. > (I have written about mana cetasika before) ------------------------- KH: Metaphorically, mana may be a remnant of atta-view. I'll grant you that! :-) But in reality it is a cetasika that arises independently of any kind of view. ------------------- <. . .> > D: again , it is your claim and not my duty to search in the UP files ----------------- KH: I look forward to the day when Thanissaro recants his heterodoxy, and joins DSG. :-) In the meantime, I wish I could have a meaningful discussion about his views without being asked to provide the same evidence over and over (and over) again. Ken H #123582 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations rjkjp1 Dear lukas Ha, most of us get caught up by romance . I told afriend in new zealand ,who got a bit desperate after his wife left him he was better off without her, and to come up to Thailand with me where he would find a better one. He is still in new zealand though, crying about her. Still it can be an expensive proposition, some men get to thailand , fall in love woth a yong cute girl and end up broke trying to buy love. No rule... Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Rober (also Sarah and Nina) > > > > You probably dont feel like it right now but you have an immense reservoir of parami and wisdom of your own, as far as I can tell from ypur posts. > > L: For sure I have a big reservoir of getting into troubles :P (No matter where I am). Also I know myself very good. And one of my biggest problems are using intoxicants, liking bad company and the third problem: Falling in love. I am very sensitive for falling in love, though I know this are always a big troubles to me. And it's like with alcohol, doesnt go in good way (just another addiction in my case). I am so scared to fall in love. The last of my love ended, that i've almost died. It was maybe one year ago. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #123583 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question to Acharn Sujin - meetings at the foundations nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 4-apr-2012, om 21:38 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > What is moment of seeing? In the moment of seeing there is no > falling in love isnt it? No problems at that moment. But afterwards > comes 'falling in love' story. And this is very strong. very. ----- N: Seeing is just vipaaka. No problems. Falling in love, those are akusala javana cittas, also conditioned. Not you, just conditioned elements. Therefore, no problem. Phenomena roll on, by conditions. It is a passing story. I think of the good mail pt wrote to you. It will all settle down when you get older. I remember Ven. Dhammadharo saying to me: unpleasant feeling is just unpleasant feeling, and, he said, he knew that this was very unpleasant. It feels so unpleasant. Conditioned elements. Nina. #123584 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote; S: I think it would be good to continue on with the Cetasikas project as well - it doesn't matter how slowly. Just because there isn't a lot of response at times doesn't mean that people don't find it interesting/helpful/good to reflect on. If it's really controversial, you can be sure you'll get responses:-) With the DN text, like Nina, I think that just a short paragraph at a time with any comments with regard to the cetasikas, is best for thorough discussion. Again there's no hurry. ===== D: ok , both ;-) I think it is important to see the cetasikas in relation to the Maha Satipatthana , in particular as the contemplation of mind is concerned (+ niravana) "((3) He further clearly perceives and understands any state of consciousness or mind (cittanupassana), whether it is greedy or not, hateful or not, deluded or not, cramped or distracted, developed or undeveloped, surpassable or unsurpassable, concentrated or unconcentrated, liberated or unliberated (Nyanatiloka)" Common aspects are assumed .. but how corresponding I noted that in case of no response controversial issues may be missing .. well ... ;-) with Metta Dieter #123585 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 8:37 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> RE: That may be true in a sense, but there are more "local" chains of conditionality that create their own sub-strings of "causality" and relate to other strings in a less direct way, I would think. If there are two chains of dominoes and they are each knocking down their own chain there are minor currents of wind and such between them, but they may never directly influence each other for a long time or forever. On the other hand if they intersect at a certain point then at that point we can trace the influence on the subsequent dominoes back to both chains, rather than just one. Maybe there's something similar with dhammas. Each of us has our own momentary experiences [meaning citta does,] and yet at certain points we seem to either share or create conditions for others' momentary experiences through various rupas, or something like that! ------------------ KH: The only way of answering those questions would be to have a conventional science of namas and rupas. Nama-and-rupaology. But there is no such thing. There is no possible way of knowing which kamma produced which vipakka, for example. I think that fits in perfectly well with satipatthana. In satipatthana there is no concept of a self (being, actor, doer) nor anything pertaining to a self. So the identity of the self (the chain of conditionality) that created the conditions for the present dhammarammana could never be relevant in satipatthana. It's *all* just disinterested, impersonal dhammas. Ken H #123586 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:16 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I think that fits in perfectly well with satipatthana. In satipatthana there is no concept of a self (being, actor, doer) nor anything pertaining to a self. So the identity of the self (the chain of conditionality) that created the conditions for the present dhammarammana could never be relevant in satipatthana. I think the only relevance is in the understanding of conditionality itself, not in understanding the individual chain. > It's *all* just disinterested, impersonal dhammas. I agree. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123587 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:20 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat eddielou_us Hi Ken, Enlightenment is only with people. Without people, it is nothing. Without sixth senses, there is nothing, or nothing is important. In other words, anything is nothing without our loss of our ability to discern. Enlightenment to me means coming into realization with one or combination(s) of six senses, made possible with wisdom (panna) through requisite morality & concentration (sila & samadhi). As a side track, unless I am mistaken, all these tangible, material or physical objects come into being on account of our mental forces according to Buddha's teachings. So again in other words, mental forces come first and foremost before these physical objects come into existence. I am still rethinking, delibrating and skeptical though. I could be wrong on this so hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable or wiser can come forward to endorse or correct it. Metta & Respect, Eddie > Hi Eddie, > > The points you have raised are DSG's staple diet. Is the Dhamma about people becoming enlightened, or is it about enlightenment without people? > > It's hard to imagine how there could be enlightenment without people, but I am convinced that is the right answer. > > If it is the right answer there would be no need to "do" anything in order to reach enlightenment, would there? There would be no person to "do" it, and no person to "reach" it. > > So, which do you think is the right answer? > > Ken H > #123588 From: "eddielou_us" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:22 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat eddielou_us Correction: nothing without our loss of our ability to discern... should read nothing with our loss of our ability to discern... Metta Eddie #123589 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:14 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123519) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: One cannot commit a conventional murder without the dhammas arising that hate and intend the eradication of the being. That *is* the correlation. When the kilesas are eradicated, the conventional act cannot take place, period. That is pretty firm stuff, and a most excellent correlation! > =============== J: Of course, it's fine to say, "One cannot commit a conventional murder without the dhammas arising that hate and intend the eradication of the being". But at the same time as students of the teachings we need to realise that: - "murder" is a concept, - "the dhammas that hate and intend the eradication of a being" are the kilesas (i.e., asobhana cetasikas that have been accumulated as latent tendencies) that support certain akusala kamma patha. So while there is in a sense a correlation, it is dependent on how the concept of "murder" is understood. In paramattha terms, we are talking about a kind of akusala kamma patha. > =============== > > J: Before stream entry it was a (largely theoretical) possibility, but after stream entry not. There is no further `correlation' to be made. > > RE: That's a big correlation. Can you please address the fact that the sotappana cannot drink, cannot kill anyone, etc., etc. and that this *cannot* in and of itself is a correlation to the eradication of the kilesas. I would just like to address that directly. How can that *not* be in and of itself, a very clear correlation? > =============== J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. > =============== > > J: Right, a sotapanna cannot commit murder. I have no problem agreeing with that :-)) > > RE: Well then there is a conventional action that he cannot do. That's that! > =============== J: Yes, any conventional action that falls within the class of akusala kamma patha that cannot be done can be spoken of in the same way: The sotapanna cannot do it. If you want to call that a correlation, you may; but I wouldn't, because in order to properly state the correlation that exists you'd need to list out all the conventional deeds that fall within the class of akusala kamma patha. > =============== > > J: Right. I have no problem with this particular statement ("conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha"). If you like to think of this as a "correspondence" then I suppose that's fine. > > If you accept that, it's more than a correspondence. It means that namas and rupas translate into conventional actions and vice versa. > =============== J: Sorry, but I can't grasp what you're saying here (especially the `vice versa' part). > =============== > > J: As I pointed out in an earlier message, restraint need not be accompanied by awareness/panna. > > RE: I am talking about a case where one purposely refrains from killing, not just by coincidence. > =============== J: The same applies: panna need not be involved. > =============== > > J: The awareness that is satipatthana would not arise together with a citta that has the concept of insect as its object. > > RE: Well then I guess the eradication of the kilesas involved takes care of the non-desire for murder without any special awareness having to arise to "remind" the sotapanna not to kill. Probably just not in his vocabulary anymore. > =============== J: Right. Where there's no inclination in the first place, there's no room for `restraint' to arise. Jon #123590 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (123530) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: Now as we know, `meditation' is not a term that was used by the Buddha himself. So I'd be interested to know how you decide whether, in a given instance, the Buddha is talking about meditation-type practice or daily-life development. > > > > For example, which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta would you see as involving meditation practice, and which parts as not (or not necessarily) involving that? > > RE: Well, that is an interesting question, especially if one divides the practice in that way. I don't think that including "formal" meditation in the practice necessarily divides it that neatly. It is the omission of meditation from the practice that divides the Buddha's various instructions, or descriptions if you prefer, into two distinct parts. > =============== J: Thanks for the analysis that follows, in which you set out your understanding of various suttas that you consider to be key to the development of the path. I will get back to you on those points separately. But my question was really on a different point, namely, what makes a given description or instruction in the suttas a description of, or instruction for, *meditation*. It's clear from what you say in your answer here that the sitting parts described un the suttas are, in your terms, meditation. And there's a strong implication that non-sitting parts are not. Have I understood correctly? If not, and non-sitting parts may also be meditation, then what element or characteristic makes a non-sitting description/instruction `meditation' (as you understand the term). Jon #123591 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:51 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123519) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: One cannot commit a conventional murder without the dhammas arising that hate and intend the eradication of the being. That *is* the correlation. When the kilesas are eradicated, the conventional act cannot take place, period. That is pretty firm stuff, and a most excellent correlation! > > =============== > > J: Of course, it's fine to say, "One cannot commit a conventional murder without the dhammas arising that hate and intend the eradication of the being". But at the same time as students of the teachings we need to realise that: > - "murder" is a concept, > - "the dhammas that hate and intend the eradication of a being" are the kilesas (i.e., asobhana cetasikas that have been accumulated as latent tendencies) that support certain akusala kamma patha. > > So while there is in a sense a correlation, it is dependent on how the concept of "murder" is understood. In paramattha terms, we are talking about a kind of akusala kamma patha. I would really be grateful for a very specific answer, if it is possible, to the following question, which is sort of where the conceptual rubber hits the dhamma road, in my view: What is your understanding of the role of the intention to "eradicate a being" which is a *necessity* for the kamma patha corresponding to murder to take place, since "a being" is a concept. How is it possible that the dhammas involved in the kamma patha must have the concept of a being in order to arise? Does that not show that without certain concepts, full kamma pathas cannot be completed? And does that not mix dhammas and concepts, and in fact cause them to interact? Does not the concept of murder and the concept of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > > =============== > > > J: Before stream entry it was a (largely theoretical) possibility, but after stream entry not. There is no further `correlation' to be made. > > > > RE: That's a big correlation. Can you please address the fact that the sotappana cannot drink, cannot kill anyone, etc., etc. and that this *cannot* in and of itself is a correlation to the eradication of the kilesas. I would just like to address that directly. How can that *not* be in and of itself, a very clear correlation? > > =============== > > J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. Well if you put that inversely, you would be saying that "what we look at as certain conventional acts, such as murder, robbery, adultery, etc., are actually convenient labels for certain kamma pathas, etc." That is fine with me, because that shows the correlation right there. What we refer to and experience as murder is in fact certain kamma patha taking place, with various dhammas and concepts involved. What I have been saying for approximately a decade is that conventional forms are not merely nonexistent hallucinations, but that they are a deluded way of looking at dhammas. I think you've established that translation right here, and perhaps - if you really do feel that way after seeing my way of describing what you said in reverse - we may agree on the relationship that dhammas and concepts have in reality. > > =============== > > > J: Right, a sotapanna cannot commit murder. I have no problem agreeing with that :-)) > > > > RE: Well then there is a conventional action that he cannot do. That's that! > > =============== > > J: Yes, any conventional action that falls within the class of akusala kamma patha that cannot be done can be spoken of in the same way: The sotapanna cannot do it. If you want to call that a correlation, you may; but I wouldn't, because in order to properly state the correlation that exists you'd need to list out all the conventional deeds that fall within the class of akusala kamma patha. Well that's fine with me. We can say that there is a full list of akusala kamma patha which can be described and experienced in conventional terms as various activities and events "in the world" which in fact cannot take place at given stages of development of the path. We can add your proviso that what is prevented from arising are the dhammas that allow for those kamma pathas and the kamma pathas themselves, and that the conventional labels are only ways of describing the conventional experience of those dhammas when they are not experienced directly. I think we can say that without producing an exhaustive list. We can say that this is so for any conventional activity that is found to fall within the group of activities that correspond to dhammas that the sotapanna will no longer experience. > > =============== > > > J: Right. I have no problem with this particular statement ("conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha"). If you like to think of this as a "correspondence" then I suppose that's fine. > > > > If you accept that, it's more than a correspondence. It means that namas and rupas translate into conventional actions and vice versa. > > =============== > > J: Sorry, but I can't grasp what you're saying here (especially the `vice versa' part). Here's what you said: "conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha" Vice versa would be: "the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha = conventional murder" More like inverse really I guess. Also, you could do both reversals in the negative: "Without murderous kamma patha, conventional murder is impossible;" and "Without conventional murder, murderous kamma patha is impossible." > > =============== > > > J: As I pointed out in an earlier message, restraint need not be accompanied by awareness/panna. > > > > RE: I am talking about a case where one purposely refrains from killing, not just by coincidence. > > =============== > > J: The same applies: panna need not be involved. > > > =============== > > > J: The awareness that is satipatthana would not arise together with a citta that has the concept of insect as its object. > > > > RE: Well then I guess the eradication of the kilesas involved takes care of the non-desire for murder without any special awareness having to arise to "remind" the sotapanna not to kill. Probably just not in his vocabulary anymore. > > =============== > > J: Right. Where there's no inclination in the first place, there's no room for `restraint' to arise. And yet I wonder if there ever is a stage of "restraint," and if so, how would that be described in dhamma terms? How would "guarding the senses" be described in dhamma terms? How would "avoiding evil people" and "seeking out the company of spiritual friends" be described in dhamma terms? How would "right speech" be described in dhamma terms? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #123592 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123519) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote > > =============== > > > J: Before stream entry it was a (largely theoretical) possibility, but after stream entry not. There is no further `correlation' to be > > > > RE: That's a big correlation. Can you please address the fact that the sotappana cannot drink, cannot kill anyone, etc., etc. and that this *cannot* in and of itself is a correlation to the eradication of the kilesas. I would just like to address that directly. How can that *not* be in and of itself, a very clear correlation? > > =============== > > J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. Dear rob and jon Just as an illustration from the illustrTor connie posted this a while back on drinking. I do see correlation between conventional terms and actions and paramattha dhammas > ase enjoy what The Illustrator has to say: > > ch2 The Ten Training Precepts - dsasikkhaapada"m: > 15. Any opportunity for negligence due to liquor, wine and besotting drink: here as to 'liquor', there are five kinds of liquor: flour liquor, cake liquor, rice liquor, that containing yeast, and that mixed with condiments. Also 'wine' is of five kinds: flower wine, fruit wine, sugar wine, honey wine, and that mixed with condiments (Vin iv 110). Both these are 'besotting' (majja) in the sense of causing intoxication (madaniiya); or alternatively, whatever else there is that causes intoxication, by drinking which one becomes mad (matta) and negligent (pamatta) is called 'besotting'. The 'opportunity for negligence' (pamaada.t.thaana) is the choice by which one drinks, swallows. That is so called since it is the cause for the [subsequent] vanity (madness) and negligence (mada-ppamaada); consequently, what should be understood as the 'opportunity for negligence' is the choice in swallowing the liquor, wine or besotting drink, as intent to swallow, which occurs in the body door (see Ch. v, §153 below). > > > > Illustrator ch5 > 153. From besotting drink refraining (majjapaanaa ca sa"myamo): this designates abstention from any opportunity for negligence (intoxication) due to wine, liquor, and besotting drink, which has already been described (Ch. ii, 15). This refraining from besotting drink is called a good omen because one who drinks besotting drinks does not know either a meaning or an idea; he ill-treats his mother and his father and Enlightened Ones and Hermit Enlightened Ones and Perfect Ones' disciples; here and now he encounters censure, in his next rebirth, an unhappy destination, and in the life after that, madness; but when a man refrains from besotting drink, he achieves both immunity from those defects and excellence in those special qualities that are their opposites. So that, it should be understood, is why it is called a good omen. > > > > > that cannot be done can be spoken of in the same way: The sotapanna cannot do it. If you want to call that a correlation, you may; but I wouldn't, because in order to properly state the correlation that exists you'd need to list out all the conventional deeds that fall within the class of akusala kamma patha. > > > =============== > > > J: Right. I have no problem with this particular statement ("conventional murder = the namas and rupas of murderous kamma patha"). If you like to think of this as a "correspondence" then I suppose that's fine. > > > > If you accept that, it's more than a correspondence. It means that namas and rupas translate into conventional actions and vice versa. > > =============== > > J: Sorry, but I can't grasp what you're saying here (especially the `vice versa' part). > > > =============== > > > J: As I pointed out in an earlier message, restraint need not be accompanied by awareness/panna. > > > > RE: I am talking about a case where one purposely refrains from killing, not just by coincidence. > > =============== > > J: The same applies: panna need not be involved. > > > =============== > > > J: The awareness that is satipatthana would not arise together with a citta that has the concept of insect as its object. > > > > RE: Well then I guess the eradication of the kilesas involved takes care of the non-desire for murder without any special awareness having to arise to "remind" the sotapanna not to kill. Probably just not in his vocabulary anymore. > > =============== > > J: Right. Where there's no inclination in the first place, there's no room for `restraint' to arise. > > Jon > #123593 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 12:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123530) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: Now as we know, `meditation' is not a term that was used by the Buddha himself. So I'd be interested to know how you decide whether, in a given instance, the Buddha is talking about meditation-type practice or daily-life development. > > > > > > For example, which parts of the Satipatthana Sutta would you see as involving meditation practice, and which parts as not (or not necessarily) involving that? > > > > RE: Well, that is an interesting question, especially if one divides the practice in that way. I don't think that including "formal" meditation in the practice necessarily divides it that neatly. It is the omission of meditation from the practice that divides the Buddha's various instructions, or descriptions if you prefer, into two distinct parts. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for the analysis that follows, in which you set out your understanding of various suttas that you consider to be key to the development of the path. I will get back to you on those points separately. > > But my question was really on a different point, namely, what makes a given description or instruction in the suttas a description of, or instruction for, *meditation*. > > It's clear from what you say in your answer here that the sitting parts described un the suttas are, in your terms, meditation. And there's a strong implication that non-sitting parts are not. Have I understood correctly? If not, and non-sitting parts may also be meditation, then what element or characteristic makes a non-sitting description/instruction `meditation' (as you understand the term). Well in the past I have not given meditation such a neat and specific definition, though I can tell you what I think are some conventional and non-conventional attributes. I understand your interest. As I suggested in the last post, I don't think it is such a neat dividing line between meditation and everyday life, and as I said, I think that those aspects of "formal" practice that are meditative in nature are meant to apply to everyday life as well, so practice exists on a continuum. On the other hand, I see meditation practice as certain exercises, or in some cases the application of certain principles, which build mental states and skills and lead to spiritual evolution through the development of those states and skills. I look at meditation as being largely non-conceptual, so if one is attending the sensation of the breath as a sensation, or if one is regarding a thought as thought and being aware of its nature or attributes - whatever the object is, meditation is the direct awareness of its existence as itself and its attributes. If one is thinking about concepts and developing a conceptual understanding I would call that contemplation rather than meditation. Sitting still, in conventional terms, seems an ideal setting for this kind of direct [meditative] development, but walking, doing other activities, or just attending the direct reality of various experiential moments as they arise, can also be meditative in nature. I believe it is harder to have a concentrated awareness of what is taking place in a moment while moving around or doing activities, but meditation can take place in various circumstances depending on one's accumulations and abilities. When The Buddha talks about techniques that develop direct discernment through direct attention on the object, I would consider those meditation, whether they are practice that attempts that direct awareness, or the direct awareness itself; and where the Buddha talks about techniques that involve thought and intellectual understanding, I would regard those as contemplative in nature. I think where we differ would probably be in two areas, [in addition to most of the above]: I see the correct attempt to discern realities as part of meditation rather than non-meditation, and that such attempts - like practicing with a hammer and missing the nail until eventually your aim gets better and you hit the nail - are part of meditation; and: I think that, like hitting the nail, the regular practice of such focus on awareness increases the development of such awareness, rather than being a futile exercise in control. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123594 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Rob K. and Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > RE: That's a big correlation. Can you please address the fact that the sotappana cannot drink, cannot kill anyone, etc., etc. and that this *cannot* in and of itself is a correlation to the eradication of the kilesas. I would just like to address that directly. How can that *not* be in and of itself, a very clear correlation? > > > =============== > > > > J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. > > > Dear rob and jon > Just as an illustration from the illustrTor connie posted this a while back on drinking. > I do see correlation between conventional terms and actions and paramattha dhammas > > > Please enjoy what The Illustrator has to say ... Thanks, Rob, that is helpful. What do you think, Jon? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #123595 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi RobK (and Rob E) Many thanks for coming in on this long-running thread. I think both Rob E and I (and no doubt everyone who's been following the thread) are very pleased -- relieved even! -- to have some fresh input. (123592) > > J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. > > RK: Dear rob and jon > Just as an illustration from the illustrTor connie posted this a while back on drinking. I do see correlation between conventional terms and actions and paramattha dhammas =============== J: So I can respond, how would you state/describe that correlation? Thanks. Jon PS Thanks also for the quote from The Illustrator (re-copied below) The Illustrator Ch2 The Ten Training Precepts - dsasikkhaapada"m: > 15. Any opportunity for negligence due to liquor, wine and besotting drink: - Here as to 'liquor', there are five kinds of liquor: flour liquor, cake liquor, rice liquor, that containing yeast, and that mixed with condiments. Also 'wine' is of five kinds: flower wine, fruit wine, sugar wine, honey wine, and that mixed with condiments (Vin iv 110). - Both these are 'besotting' (majja) in the sense of causing intoxication (madaniiya); or alternatively, whatever else there is that causes intoxication, by drinking which one becomes mad (matta) and negligent (pamatta) is called 'besotting'. - The 'opportunity for negligence' (pamaada.t.thaana) is the choice by which one drinks, swallows. That is so called since it is the cause for the [subsequent] vanity (madness) and negligence (mada-ppamaada); consequently, what should be understood as the 'opportunity for negligence' is the choice in swallowing the liquor, wine or besotting drink, as intent to swallow, which occurs in the body door (see Ch. v, §153 below). > > > > Illustrator ch5 > 153. From besotting drink refraining (majjapaanaa ca sa"myamo): This designates abstention from any opportunity for negligence (intoxication) due to wine, liquor, and besotting drink, which has already been described (Ch. ii, 15). This refraining from besotting drink is called a good omen because one who drinks besotting drinks does not know either a meaning or an idea; he ill-treats his mother and his father and Enlightened Ones and Hermit Enlightened Ones and Perfect Ones' disciples; here and now he encounters censure, in his next rebirth, an unhappy destination, and in the life after that, madness; but when a man refrains from besotting drink, he achieves both immunity from those defects and excellence in those special qualities that are their opposites. So that, it should be understood, is why it is called a good omen. > > #123596 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:28 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK (and Rob E) > > Many thanks for coming in on this long-running thread. I think both Rob E and I (and no doubt everyone who's been following the thread) are very pleased -- relieved even! -- to have some fresh input. > > (123592) > > > J: The thing that the sotapanna cannot do is to *commit certain akusala kamma patha*. Now we may describe that akusala kamma patha by using conventional terms (kill, steal, commit adultery) but these are only labels of convenience. > > > > RK: Dear rob and jon > > Just as an illustration from the illustrTor connie posted this a while back on drinking. > I do see correlation between conventional terms and actions and paramattha dhammas > =============== > > J: So I can respond, how would you state/describe that correlation? Thanks. > > Jon Dear jon To take the example of drinking alcohol. In conventional terms somone craves the taste of wine or likes the effects of drinking, or enjoys being 'happy' or likes the feeling while drunk. They then drink wine and to a lesser ir greater extent get the expected 'reward' In paramttha terms lobha condtions vaci vinatti to order the drink, and conditions the rupas to drink it down. Vedana of the type that arises while drunk, or drinking then arises > > PS Thanks also for the quote from The Illustrator (re-copied below) > > The Illustrator Ch2 > The Ten Training Precepts - dsasikkhaapada"m: > > 15. Any opportunity for negligence due to liquor, wine and besotting drink: > - Here as to 'liquor', there are five kinds of liquor: flour liquor, cake liquor, rice liquor, that containing yeast, and that mixed with condiments. Also 'wine' is of five kinds: flower wine, fruit wine, sugar wine, honey wine, and that mixed with condiments (Vin iv 110). > - Both these are 'besotting' (majja) in the sense of causing intoxication (madaniiya); or alternatively, whatever else there is that causes intoxication, by drinking which one becomes mad (matta) and negligent (pamatta) is called 'besotting'. > - The 'opportunity for negligence' (pamaada.t.thaana) is the choice by which one drinks, swallows. That is so called since it is the cause for the [subsequent] vanity (madness) and negligence (mada-ppamaada); consequently, what should be understood as the 'opportunity for negligence' is the choice in swallowing the liquor, wine or besotting drink, as intent to swallow, which occurs in the body door (see Ch. v, §153 below). > > > > > > > > Illustrator ch5 > > 153. From besotting drink refraining (majjapaanaa ca sa"myamo): > This designates abstention from any opportunity for negligence (intoxication) due to wine, liquor, and besotting drink, which has already been described (Ch. ii, 15). This refraining from besotting drink is called a good omen because one who drinks besotting drinks does not know either a meaning or an idea; he ill-treats his mother and his father and Enlightened Ones and Hermit Enlightened Ones and Perfect Ones' disciples; here and now he encounters censure, in his next rebirth, an unhappy destination, and in the life after that, madness; but when a man refrains from besotting drink, he achieves both immunity from those defects and excellence in those special qualities that are their opposites. So that, it should be understood, is why it is called a good omen. > > > > #123597 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Jon) - Butting in on one point: In a message dated 4/5/2012 9:51:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: What is your understanding of the role of the intention to "eradicate a being" which is a *necessity* for the kamma patha corresponding to murder to take place, since "a being" is a concept. How is it possible that the dhammas involved in the kamma patha must have the concept of a being in order to arise? Does that not show that without certain concepts, full kamma pathas cannot be completed? And does that not mix dhammas and concepts, and in fact cause them to interact? Does not the concept of murder and the concept of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? ================================== What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is requisite. There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we identify as such. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123598 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:08 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Howard, Jon, Robs, > RE: Does not the concept of murder and the concept > of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > ================================== > H: What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is > requisite. > There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and > such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. > Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and > thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although > there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we > identify as such. pt: At work sometimes I see mentally disturbed people trying and apparently succeeding in killing a being that only they believe is real. So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as kamma patha anyway? Best wishes pt #123599 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Classes of cetasikas ptaus1 Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply. > N: ... Thus, concentration accompanying the kusala citta with pa~n~naa that > develops vipassanaa is different from the concentration that > accompanies the kusala citta with pa~n~naa that develops samatha. > Both types of cittas and accompanying cetasikas have different aims, > different ways of practice. pt: Yes, it seems reasonable that concentration of samatha class is different from concentration of vipassana class. As it is with panna, too. It further seems just as reasonable that the same should apply to all the other cetasikas - universals, particulars and sobhana. Regarding whether concentration of samatha class conditions concentration of vipassana class for example, I understand that it is difficult to answer. I find it safer for now to assume that it doesn't, and apply the same to other cetasikas as well, but I don't know of course, nor do I have a handy textual reference. Best wishes pt